Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 565.095 (2025)

Licensure as primary American source of supply.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session Cite as: Fla. Stat. § 565.095 (2025)

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

565.095 Licensure as primary American source of supply.—

(1) DEFINITION.—“Primary American source of supply” means the manufacturer, rectifier, or bottler, or their legally authorized exclusive agent, who, if the product cannot be secured directly from the manufacturer by an American distributor, is the source closest to the manufacturer in the channel of commerce from whom the product can be secured by an American distributor, or who, if the product can be secured directly from the manufacturer by an American distributor, is the manufacturer. It shall also include any applicant who directly purchases spirituous liquors from a manufacturer, rectifier, or bottler who represents that there is no primary American source of supply for the brand, and such applicant must petition the division for approval of licensure.

(2) TAX CONTROL LICENSURE REQUIRED.—For purposes of tax revenue control, no person, firm, corporation, or other entity which is the primary American source of supply as defined herein may sell, offer for sale, accept orders for sale, ship, or cause to be shipped into this state any spirituous liquors to any distributor or importer within the state without having first obtained licensure as a primary American source of supply on forms provided by, and in such manner as prescribed by, the division. Applicants for licensure as a primary American source of supply shall be exempt from the requirements and qualification standards set forth in ss. 561.15 and 561.17.

(3) LICENSE FEES.—Licensure as a primary American source of supply authorizes the shipment of distilled spirits manufactured within and without the state to licensed distributors, importers, manufacturers, bonded warehouses, and registered exporters within the state. The annual license fee for a primary American source of supply is $30 for each brand that requires a federal label approval and is scheduled for shipment to a licensed distributor or importer within this state for the purpose of being sold within the state. The annual license fee shall be submitted with the application for initial licensure. This license shall be renewed each year, and the renewal fee shall be $30 for each brand shipped into the state during the preceding year.

(4) CERTAIN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN SHIPMENTS PROHIBITED.—No holder of a distributor’s license or importer’s license as classified by s. 561.14(2) may ship or cause to be shipped into this state, or accept delivery of from another state or a foreign country, any spirituous liquors except directly from a primary American source of supply.

(5) PRIVATE LABELS.—Nothing herein shall prohibit the ownership by vendors of brand names of distilled spirits and vinous beverages commonly known as private labels; provided, that such ownership and use thereof does not otherwise violate the Beverage Law.

(6) RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.—The division shall promulgate rules as necessary to carry out the purpose of this section.

History.—ss. 2, 3, ch. 78-135; s. 2, ch. 85-58; s. 11, ch. 96-419.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1979–1987 · leading case: Park Benziger & Co. v. SOUTHERN WINE, ETC.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Park Benziger & Co. v. SOUTHERN WINE, ETC. (1980) fla · cites it 7× “, the trial judge passed upon the constitutionality of section 565.095, Florida Statutes, which deals with the distribution and sale of intoxicating liquor.”

Fla. Bev. Corp. v. Div. of Alcoholic Bev. (1987) fladistctapp · cites it 2× “095(5) (Chapter 565's liquor counterpart to the similar wine provision in the subject statute) became, by virtue of the above-stated principle of law, a part of the brand distribution contract which had been entered into between the manufacturer's predecessor and its distributor.”

Standard Distributing Co. v. Florida Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages (1985) fladistctapp · cites it 4× “Thereupon, DBR issued a show cause order to ISC to determine why there had been no compliance with § 565.095(5). ISC replied to the show cause order asserting that it was not a manufacturer under the statute and therefore was not subject to the withdrawal provisions of Chapter…”

Somerset Importers, Ltd. v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco (1983) fladistctapp · cites it 3× “Appellant’s primary argument that the statute is unconstitutional depends upon its contention that § 565.095(5) interferes with its constitutional rights to contract.”

Florida Beverage Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco (1982) fladistctapp · cites it 6× “This cause is before us on appeal from a declaratory statement wherein the agency, construing Section 565.095(5), Florida Statutes, pertaining to withdrawal of a registered brand or label, determined that the appointment by the manufacturer of a second distributor for a given…”

General Wholesale Co. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco (1979) fladistctapp · cites it 4× “), the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco of the Department of Business Regulation declined to answer a question as to the application of Section 565.095(5), Florida Statutes (1978 Supp.”

Paddington Corp. v. Southern Wine & Spirits, Inc. (1981) fladistctapp · cites it 2× “14(1), Florida Statutes (1979)] to continue supplying Southern with Bailey’s Irish Cream because no proceedings had been had pursuant to Section 565.095(5), Florida Statutes (1979) to withdraw this registered brand from Southern.”

— 565.095(5) — 7 cases

Park Benziger & Co. v. SOUTHERN WINE, ETC. (1980) fla “, the trial judge passed upon the constitutionality of section 565.095, Florida Statutes, which deals with the distribution and sale of intoxicating liquor.”

Fla. Bev. Corp. v. Div. of Alcoholic Bev. (1987) fladistctapp “095(5) (Chapter 565's liquor counterpart to the similar wine provision in the subject statute) became, by virtue of the above-stated principle of law, a part of the brand distribution contract which had been entered into between the manufacturer's predecessor and its distributor.”

Standard Distributing Co. v. Florida Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages (1985) fladistctapp “Thereupon, DBR issued a show cause order to ISC to determine why there had been no compliance with § 565.095(5). ISC replied to the show cause order asserting that it was not a manufacturer under the statute and therefore was not subject to the withdrawal provisions of Chapter…”

Somerset Importers, Ltd. v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco (1983) fladistctapp “Appellant’s primary argument that the statute is unconstitutional depends upon its contention that § 565.095(5) interferes with its constitutional rights to contract.”

Florida Beverage Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco (1982) fladistctapp “This cause is before us on appeal from a declaratory statement wherein the agency, construing Section 565.095(5), Florida Statutes, pertaining to withdrawal of a registered brand or label, determined that the appointment by the manufacturer of a second distributor for a given…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.