opinion: MORDELL v. DORAN, Prohibition Commissioner, et al.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
  June 20, 1928.
  No. 3796.
  Intoxicating liquors <§=»106(2)— Disappearance of 10 barrels of alcohol overnight warranted Commissioner’s finding that liquor was improperly diverted by permittee, justifying revocation of permit.
  Disappearance of 10 barrels of denatured alcohol, for which permittee was liable, overnight, was fact on which Commissioner could properly base finding that liquor was improperly diverted by permittee, justifying revocation of permit.
  Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; William H. Kirkpatrick, Judge.
  S. 0. Wing, Prohibition Administrator, revoked the permit of Irvin Mordell, trading as the Mordell Manufacturing Company. The permittee sued James M. Doran, Prohibition Commissioner, and the Administrator, to set aside the revocation and for an injunction. The revocation was sustained, and the permittee appeals.
  Affirmed.
  Michael Serody and Benjamin M. Golder, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
  Warren C. Graham, Howard Benton Lewis, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Richard Hay Woolsey, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.
  Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  In this ease the prohibition administrator revoked the permit of Irvin Mordell. The case was reviewed by a hearer and the court below, and revocation sustained.
  Examination of the proofs discloses no error. 10 barrels of denatured alcohol, for which the permittee was liable, disappeared overnight. He alleged they were stolen, but his proofs failed to satisfy the prohibition administrator of the integrity of his alleged explanation. In that regard the court below held, and we reach the same conclusion, “that the disappearance of the liquor under the circumstances in this ease is a fact upon which the Commissioner could properly base a finding that the liquor was improperly diverted by the permittee.”
  Without, therefore, discussing other contentions, we limit ourselves to affirming the decree below.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "manufacturing". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto chemical drug food processing oil refining textile electronic alcohol or tobacco other unclear