CALLAHAN, C.J.

This appeal arises out of a license suspension ordered, after a hearing, by the department of liquor control (department). The plaintiffs, Gambrinus Importing Co., Inc., backer, and John R. Slimp, permittee, were summoned to the hearing to show cause why their out-of-state shipper's beer permit should not be suspended or another penalty imposed for certain alleged violations of the Liquor Control Act and departmental regulations. After the hearing, the department found that the plaintiffs had committed multiple violations of General Statutes §§ 30-94 and 30-63 (b), and § 30-6-A29 (a) and (f) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. As a consequence, the department imposed a 400 day suspension of the plaintiffs' out-of-state shipper's beer permit for each violation, the penalties to run concurrently, or in lieu of suspension, a fine of $30,000.

Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (a), the plaintiffs appealed the department's decision to the Superior Court. The trial court upheld the department's determination of statutory and regulatory violations and concluded that the department had not abused its discretion by imposing the penalty. The trial court also concluded that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the constitutionality of General Statutes § 30-63 (c), the price posting statute, even though the department had not alleged or found a violation of § 30-63 (c). On the merits, however, the trial court found no per se violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and hence rejected the plaintiffs' constitutional claim that § 30-63 (c) violates the supremacy clause of article six of the United States constitution. The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's decision to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c).

On appeal the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly concluded that: (1) § 30-6-A29 (f) is a valid exercise of the department's regulatory authority because its terms can be interpreted so as to be consistent with the substantive provisions of the Liquor Control Act; (2) § 30-63 (c) did not violate § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and, therefore, did not implicate the supremacy clause of the United States constitution; and (3) the imposition of a 400 day suspension of the plaintiffs' out-of-state shipper's permit was not an abuse of the department's administrative discretion. We affirm the decision of the trial court regarding the first and third issues; as to the second issue, we conclude that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 30-63 (c), and therefore, remand the case to the trial court with direction to dismiss the plaintiffs' constitutional claim.

The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiffs are out-of-state shippers who sell Corona beer products to various wholesalers in Connecticut. In 1992 and 1993, the plaintiffs sponsored a program that returned to Connecticut wholesalers of Corona beer $1.15 for each case of Corona beer that the wholesaler sold during a specified time period. The plaintiffs characterized this program as a product promotion; the industry denominates such a program as a "depletion allowance." Connecticut wholesalers desiring to participate in the plaintiffs' program were required to complete a promotional tracking form, a retail price letter, and a depletion report reflecting the wholesaler's beginning and ending inventory and the amount of sales for the particular period. The wholesalers were not restricted in their use of the funds obtained as a result of the depletion allowance program.

Our standards of review concerning administrative appeals are statutorily mandated: "[t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion." General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

I

The first issue on appeal concerns the scope of protection afforded the plaintiffs' program of depletion allowances under the product promotion exception in § 30-6-A29 (f). This is an issue of statutory interpretation, and as such, this court "can do no more than decide whether the commission upon the facts has mistaken the law and so has acted illegally, or whether it has reached a conclusion untenable in the light of logic and reason." Aminti v. Liquor Control Commission, 144 Conn. 550, 553, 135 A.2d 595 (1957).

The plaintiffs argue that § 30-6-A29 (f) specifically exempts them from complying with §§ 30-94 and 30-63 (b) and § 30-6-A29 (a). In support of their argument, they point to the following language of § 30-6-A29 (f): " Notwithstanding any provisions of this section to the contrary, an out-of-state shipper or manufacturer licensee may offer to wholesaler licensees funds to be used for product promotion as permitted by federal law. . . ." (Emphasis added.) The plaintiffs contend that this regulation provides an exception not only to the regulation but also to the statutes that they are charged with violating. They base their argument on a perceived change in public policy over the years. The plaintiffs argue that §§ 30-94 and 30-63 (b) and § 30-6-A29 (a) express a policy of heavy handed regulation and that such a policy is outdated and no longer viable. The plaintiffs then cite § 30-6-A29 (f) as embodying the current policy regarding liquor control, which, they claim, mirrors federal policy in the area of the regulation of intoxicating liquors. The plaintiffs argue that the policy evidenced in § 30-6-A29 (f) supersedes the policy expressed in §§ 30-94 and 30-63 (b) and § 30-6-A29 (a). The plaintiffs' ultimate conclusion is that their depletion allowance program is permitted by federal law, and they therefore cannot be found to have transgressed the state statutory and regulatory provisions that they were charged with violating. We are unpersuaded.

The basis of the plaintiffs' argument is that they are exempted from compliance with §§ 30-94 and 30-63 (b) and § 30-6-A29 (a) as a result of certain language of § 30-6-A29 (f). It is solely by the exception set forth in § 30-6-A29 (f) that the plaintiffs claim that the department incorrectly found violations of the Connecticut statutes and regulations. Therefore, if the exception does not apply, the plaintiffs' argument fails. In support of their argument, the plaintiffs submitted into evidence a letter from Harry L. McCabe, chief of the market compliance branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The letter stated: "[a]ssuming such payments are in compliance with State law, adherence to 27 C.F.R. § 10.23 will enable your client to safely act within the purview of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act." The plaintiffs cite the letter as proof that federal law permitted their promotional scheme. They conclude, therefore, that they were provided an exemption from state law pursuant to § 30-6-A29 (f).

The plaintiffs' argument fails for two reasons. First, in his letter, McCabe stated that in rendering his opinion he assumed the plaintiffs' scheme was in compliance with state law. Because the plaintiffs' compliance with state law is still in question, they can only claim that their scheme may be permitted by federal law. The letter supports nothing more. Second, § 30-6-A29 (f) contains restrictions in addition to those contained in 27 C.F.R. § 10.23. It provides that out-of-state shippers may offer promotional funds only "as permitted by federal law and in accordance with the following [additional restrictions]." (Emphasis added.) In this regard, the trial court noted that "[t]he agency was . . . warranted in finding a violation of regulation § 30-6-A29 (f) [(2)] in that the rebates were not paid for promotional purposes `without discrimination in any manner among wholesalers authorized to distribute the products to be promoted' but were paid according to discriminations made on the basis of amount of product sold." Without reference to a possible conflict between § 30-6-A29 (f) and §§ 30-94 and 30-63 (b), the record supports the department's conclusion that the plaintiffs had not acted in accordance with § 30-6-A29 (f), specifically, subsection (f)(2).

At the department hearing, the named plaintiff, Slimp, testified that the formula used by the plaintiffs to distribute funds was less discriminatory than a formula based upon population. Regardless of the discriminatory or nondiscriminatory effect of the plaintiffs' distribution formula, however, § 30-6-A29 (f) required the plaintiffs to provide the department with a detailed exposition of the distribution formula thirty days before beginning any distribution of funds. They were also required to obtain the department's approval of any formula for the distribution of funds. The plaintiffs conceded at oral argument that they had given no notice and had received no approval.

Because the department found that the plaintiffs had not acted "in accordance with" the provisions of § 30-6-A29 (f), we conclude that the trial court was correct in determining that the plaintiffs were not exempted from compliance with state law by reason of the "as permitted by federal law" language of § 30-6-A29 (f). The trial court was correct, therefore, in affirming the department's rulings that the plaintiffs had violated §§ 30-94 and 30-63 (b) and § 30-6-A29 (a) and (f).

II

The plaintiffs' second claim concerns the trial court's conclusion that § 30-63 (c) did not violate § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and, therefore, was not unconstitutional pursuant to the supremacy clause of article six of the United States constitution. The trial court ruled that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the constitutional claim because it found that the department's rationale for enforcing § 30-94 "was the consequential charging of less than the posted price through the operation of the volume rebate, a violation of § 30-63 (c)." While the trial court found that the plaintiffs had standing to raise the constitutional claim, it also found that "the plaintiffs [had] not established that the prohibition on giving discounts or rebates based on volume is on its face a violation of the Sherman Act even though it may, in combination with the posting requirements, have an anticompetitive effect." The plaintiffs contend that § 30-63 (c), the price posting statute, is a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and cannot be saved by the state action doctrine or a balancing test under the twenty-first amendment to the United States constitution. Since we conclude that the plaintiffs lack standing to raise the constitutional issue, we do not reach the merits of the plaintiffs' claim.

"Standing . . . is not a technical rule intended to keep aggrieved parties out of court; nor is it a test of substantive rights. Rather it is a practical concept designed to ensure that courts and parties are not vexed by suits brought to vindicate nonjusticable interests and that judicial decisions which may affect the rights of others are forged in hot controversy, with each view fairly and vigorously represented. See, e.g., Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962); Stern v. Stern, 165 Conn. 190, 192, 332 A.2d 78 (1973). . . . Board of Pardons v. Freedom of Information Commission, 210 Conn. 646, 648-49, 556 A.2d 1020 (1989)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Light Rigging Co. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 219 Conn. 168, 172, 592 A.2d 386 (1991). "One who has not been harmed by a statute cannot challenge its constitutionality. Salgreen Realty Co. v. Ives, 149 Conn. 208, 215, 177 A.2d 673. The question of the validity of the statute must be tested by its effect on its attacker under the particular facts of his case. Karen v. East Haddam, 146 Conn. 720, 727, 155 A.2d 921." Riley v. Liquor Control Commission, 153 Conn. 242, 247, 215 A.2d 402 (1965).

In the present case, the plaintiffs have failed to show how § 30-63 (c) had any impact on them. Section 30-63 (c) simply was not invoked. The department did not cite the plaintiffs for a violation of § 30-63 (c), and the notice and particulars sent to the plaintiffs to apprise them of the complaints against them similarly did not mention a violation of § 30-63 (c). Additionally, the department did not submit evidence of the prices posted by the plaintiffs during the time periods in question or of any reduced prices at which the department claimed they had sold their beer. The trial court determined, however, that the department's enforcement of § 30-94 was necessarily an enforcement of § 30-63 (c). We agree with the trial court that the plaintiffs would have had standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 30-63 (c) if their inducements necessarily implicated price posting or if § 30-63 (c) was enforced against them. Under the circumstances, however, we conclude that the necessary predicates for invoking § 30-63 (c) have not been met and therefore disagree with the trial court.

The statutes and regulations in question evidence two fundamental concerns of the legislature. First, the legislature was concerned that there be no favoritism, i.e., no discrimination, in the liquor industry in Connecticut. Section 30-63 (b) serves this purpose because it prohibits discrimination in "any manner in price discounts between one permittee and another." Section 30-63 (c), the price posting statute, also serves this purpose. It requires manufacturers, wholesalers, and out-of-state sellers to post the price at which they will sell their product for the following month and to sell the product at that price for that month. It does not control the price posted by the sellers, but only requires them to sell their product at the posted price to all their customers, large or small.

The second fundamental concern evinced by the statutes and regulations is the legislature's concern that artificial inducements to purchase liquor will result in increased consumption. Section 30-63 (b) also addresses this concern in that it forbids manufacturers, wholesalers, and out-of-state shippers from allowing "in any form any discount, rebate, free goods, allowance or other inducement for the purpose of making sales or purchases." (Emphasis added.) The quintessential inducement statute, however, is § 30-94. Enacted as No. 377 of the 1955 Public Acts, § 30-94 was the rewrite and codification of a liquor control commission regulation that had been in effect since 1939. The purpose of the act, entitled "An Act Concerning Illegal Inducements to Purchase," is clear from the legislative history. In a liquor control committee session on April 6, 1955, Gaynor Brennan, an attorney representing the Connecticut Wholesaler Liquor Dealers, commented on the proposed bill, SB-1111, as follows: "[t]he purpose is to prevent artificial stimulation of sales of liquor at any level." Conn. Joint Standing Committee Hearings, Liquor, 1955 Sess., p. 79. Senator James E. Foley, who moved for passage of the bill in the state senate, explained the provision as follows: "this is what we call the inducement bill and it tries to make impossible a tie-in. . . . It is an inducement to purchase this liquor by a consumer or if a wholesaler wanted to sell a stock of goods to some retailer he could try to do it with some kind of tie-in. This is to prevent that kind of an inducement, or else he could give an alarm clock or some similar merchandise. It is illegal." 6 S. Proc., Pt. 4, 1955 Sess., p. 1206. The purpose of § 30-94 was to eliminate incentive or inducement programs that would artificially increase the consumption of alcohol by tying an additional benefit to its purchase.

The trial court implicitly agreed with the position that § 30-94 does not necessarily implicate § 30-63 (c). It stated in its memorandum of decision that "the agency might be in the position of enforcing only § 30-94 if a shipper offered a gift or a prize to a customer. . . ." The trial court, however, also found that if money were exchanged, "the issue of the price posting scheme is part of the enforcement proceeding and is fairly raised as an issue in the appeal." (Emphasis added.) We disagree. We believe it is more appropriate to analyze the structure of the promotion challenged rather than the form of the benefit given to determine whether the promotion is properly characterized as an inducement to the sale of more alcohol or a scheme to reduce the sales price of the plaintiffs' product below the posted price.

A depletion allowance program, the type of program used by the plaintiffs, consists of a seller's compensating a buyer according to the amount of goods the buyer has sold during a specified time period. The benefit given to the buyer is contingent upon the buyer's success in selling the product to consumers. Because the size of the benefit is tied to the number of sales, a depletion allowance program induces the buyer to sell as much of the product as possible. The obvious purpose and direct result of the plaintiffs' depletion allowance product promotion, therefore, was the inducement of sales from the wholesalers to retailers, not the reduction of the effective sales price of the product.

Moreover, the plaintiffs' depletion allowance program regularly altered the specific products that were the subject of the promotion. The promotion at different times targeted the plaintiffs' different labels, i.e., Corona Extra, Corona Light, Negra Modelo, and Pacifico Clara, by tying the benefit to the product. The targeting of specific products for depletion allowances supports the conclusion that the primary goal of the program was the inducement of sales of the plaintiffs' selected products and not the effective reduction of the sales price.

In sum, we determine that the product promotion program run by the plaintiffs, as evidenced by the structure of the program itself, was an inducement to sell more alcohol. Any consequent theoretical reduction of the sales price does not by itself implicate § 30-63 (c). Furthermore, even if the department could have charged the plaintiffs with a violation of § 30-63 (c), it did not do so. We conclude, consequently, that the plaintiffs have no standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 30-63 (c) and therefore do not address the merits of their constitutional claim.

III

The plaintiffs' third issue is whether the penalty imposed by the department on the plaintiffs for their statutory and regulatory violations constituted an abuse of discretion. Our standard of review is derived from § 4-183 (j)(6), which requires us to affirm the department's decision unless it is "arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion."

The plaintiffs' penalty consisted of a 400 day suspension of their out-of-state shipper's beer permit for each violation, the suspensions to run concurrently. The plaintiffs were given the option of paying a $30,000 fine in lieu of the suspension. The plaintiffs claim the penalty imposed is an abuse of the department's discretion because it is excessive on its face and in light of the circumstances surrounding the promotion. The plaintiffs provide no evidence in the record by which we can examine the claimed excessiveness of the penalty. Without at least some evidence of penalties previously imposed by the department, and the circumstances of their imposition, we cannot conclude that the penalties imposed in this instance were an abuse of the department's discretion. We have no evidence by which to gauge any claimed deviation.

Moreover, despite the plaintiffs' argument to the contrary, the fact that certain mitigating factors claimed by the plaintiffs were not explicitly mentioned in the department's memorandum of decision does not require a conclusion that the department abused its discretion; it may well have considered those factors in arriving at the penalty. "[T]he court cannot, on an appeal, substitute its discretion for that vested in the liquor control commission. . . . DeMond v. Liquor Control Commission, [ 129 Conn. 642], 646 [ 30 A.2d 547 (1943)]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sumara v. Liquor Control Commission, 165 Conn. 26, 31-32, 327 A.2d 549 (1973). "[T]he granting, revocation and suspension of liquor permits [are] primarily administrative functions in the exercise of the executive power of government, and if a court were to substitute its discretion for that of the commission, it would be unconstitutionally exercising an executive function." Id., 31. General Statutes § 30-55 authorizes the department of liquor control to revoke or suspend permits "upon cause found" after a hearing. The statute provides no additional factors in addition to "cause" that must be taken into consideration when the department imposes any penalty, including revocation. If the department had the power to revoke a permit, it necessarily had the power to suspend the permit for a period of time, even a lengthy period of time. We conclude that we have no evidence that the department abused its discretion when imposing penalties on the plaintiffs.