May 31, 2010
---------------------
Monday
>>>Welcome visitor, you're not logged in.
Login   Subscribe Now!
Home User Management About Us Chinese
  Bookmark   Download   Print
Search:  serch "Fabao" Window Font Size: Home PageHome PageHome Page
 
Ten Model Cases of the People's Courts' Assistance in the Construction of a Unified National Market Published by the Supreme People's Court [Effective]
最高人民法院发布十起人民法院助力全国统一大市场建设典型案例 [现行有效]
【法宝引证码】
 
  
  
Ten Model Cases of the People's Courts' Assistance in the Construction of a Unified National Market Published by the Supreme People's Court 

最高人民法院发布十起人民法院助力全国统一大市场建设典型案例

(July 25, 2022) (2022年7月25日)

Contents 目录
I. Villagers' Committee of Damazhuang Village, Liyuan Town, Tongzhou District, Beijing v. Beijing Qianyushunda Breeding Co., Ltd. (case of disputes over a house leasing contract) 一、北京市通州区梨园镇大马庄村村民委员会与北京前榆顺达养殖有限公司房屋租赁合同纠纷案
II. Case of Judgment of Acquittal Rendered upon Retrial of Zhang Wenzhong Who Was Charged with Committing Fraud, Offering Bribes to Entities, and Embezzling Funds 二、张文中诈骗、单位行贿、挪用资金再审改判无罪案
III. Yanbian Branch of Yibin Fengyuan Salt Industry Co., Ltd. v. Dunhua City Salt Administration of Jilin Province (case of administrative compulsion) 三、宜宾丰源盐业有限公司延边分公司诉吉林省敦化市盐务管理局行政强制案
IV. Rugao Jinding Real Estate Co., Ltd. and Ye Hongbin v. Wu Lianghao and Other Persons (case of disputes over the confirmation of qualifications as shareholders) 四、如皋市金鼎置业有限公司、叶宏滨与吴良好等股东资格确认纠纷案
V. Application of Skyline International Corp. for Arrest of “M/V NERISSA” 五、天际国际集团公司(Skyline International Corp.)申请扣押“尼莉莎”轮(M/V NERISSA)案
VI. Case of Judicial Reorganization of Lifan Industrial (Group) Co., Ltd. and Its 10 Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries 六、力帆实业(集团)股份有限公司及其十家全资子公司司法重整案
VII. Case of Manipulating the Futures Market by Yuanda Petrochemical Co., Ltd. and Wu Xiangdong 七、远大石化有限公司、吴向东操纵期货市场案
VIII. Case of Disputes over the Horizontal Monopoly Agreement on “Associated Company in the Form of Driving School” 八、“驾校联营”横向垄断协议纠纷案
IX. Dandong Tianmao Gas Co., Ltd. v. Liaoning Provincial Market Regulation Administration for Administrative Penalty and the State Administration for Market Regulation for Administrative Reconsideration 九、丹东天茂气体有限公司诉辽宁省市场监督管理局行政处罚及国家市场监督管理总局行政复议案
X. Case of Judgment of Acquittal Rendered upon Retrial of Wang Lijun for Conviction of Illegal Business Operation) 十、王力军非法经营再审改判无罪案
I. Villagers' Committee of Damazhuang Village, Liyuan Town, Tongzhou District, Beijing v. Beijing Qianyushunda Breeding Co., Ltd. (case of disputes over a house leasing contract)   一、北京市通州区梨园镇大马庄村村民委员会与北京前榆顺达养殖有限公司房屋租赁合同纠纷案
[Basic Facts] 【基本案情】
In 2011, the plaintiff, Villagers' Committee of Damazhuang Village, Liyuan Town, Tongzhou District, Beijing (hereinafter referred to as the “Villagers' Committee”) and the defendant, Beijing Qianyushunda Breeding Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Qianyushunda Company”) entered into a House Leasing Contract, under which the Villagers' Committee leased a collectively owned four-story building with a construction area of 13,000 square meters to Qianyushunda Company for 20 years. Qianyushunda Company subleased the house in dispute to a party who was not a party to the case for operation of hotels, gymnasiums, beauty salons, etc. On February 9, 2022, the Villagers' Committee instituted an action with the court against Qianyushunda Company on the grounds that “it is stipulated in the contract that if the rent has not been paid in full for three months, Party A has the right to terminate the contract,” requesting the termination of the House Leasing Contract and requesting Qianyushunda Company to pay the occupancy expenses and liquidated damages. Qianyushunda Company argued that the hotels, gymnasiums, beauty salons, etc. operated in the houses in dispute were greatly affected by the epidemic situation, and the lack of funds led to delay in paying rent; and the houses in dispute involved many enterprises and operators, and if the contracts were terminated, the vital interests of many micro, small and medium-sized enterprises would be affected. 2011年,原告北京市通州区梨园镇大马庄村村民委员会(以下简称村委会)与被告北京市前榆顺达养殖有限公司(以下简称前榆顺达公司)签订《房屋租赁合同》,村委会将集体所有一栋建筑面积13 000平米四层建筑物出租给前榆顺达公司,租期20年。前榆顺达公司将涉案房屋转租给案外人,用于经营宾馆、健身房、美容院等。2022年2月9日,村委会以“合同约定逾期三个月未足额交纳租金,甲方有权解除合同”为由,将前榆顺达公司起诉至法院,要求解除《房屋租赁合同》,前榆顺达公司支付占用费及违约金。前榆顺达公司辩称涉案房屋经营宾馆、健身房、美容院等受疫情冲击大,资金紧张导致迟延支付租金;涉案房屋涉及到多家企业和经营者,若解除合同,将影响众多中小微企业切身利益。
After trial of this case, to fully understand the use of the houses in dispute and the operating conditions of Qianyushunda Company, the judge handling the case went to conduct investigation and inspection on the spot. According to the court trial and on-site inspection, the handler carried out mediation work on the spot in a targeted manner, and finally facilitated both parties' mediation and completed the performance on the spot. 本案经开庭审理后,为充分了解涉案房屋使用情况、前榆顺达公司经营状况,承办法官至现场进行调查勘验。根据庭审及现场勘验情况,承办人有针对性地在现场开展调解工作,最终促成双方调解并当场履行完毕。
After the end of the mediation, both parties expressed their understanding of each other. Qianyushunda Company donated 50,000 yuan of epidemic prevention materials on the spot, and expressed gratitude to the Villagers' Committee for their hard work in the normalized epidemic prevention work. 调解结束后,双方均表示理解对方,前榆顺达公司现场捐助5万元防疫物资款,感谢村委会在常态化防疫工作中辛苦付出。
[Adjudication] 【裁判结果】
This case involved the judgment and determination of the breach of contract by micro, small and medium-sized enterprises affected by the epidemic situation. According to the contract between the two parties, the Villagers' Committee already enjoyed the right to terminate the contract. Whether Qianyushunda Company had been affected by the epidemic situation and whether it could confront the Villagers' Committee's exercise of the right to terminate the contract is the focus of the dispute in this case. It was found through on-site visits and investigations that the occupancy rate of the hotel in dispute was extremely low, the doors of the gymnasium were closed, and the business of the beauty salon was bleak, and the dispute over the leasing contract between the Qianyushunda Company and the sub-lessee was also in the court process, showing severe economic hardship of Qianyushunda Company. During the on-site inspection process of this case, on-site mediation was conducted based on the fact that Qianyushunda Company was affected by the epidemic situation, which ultimately urged the two parties to reach a mediation agreement and completed enforcement in a timely manner. 本案涉及受疫情影响的中小微企业违约行为判断认定问题。根据双方合同约定,村委会已然享有合同解除权。前榆顺达公司是否受到疫情因素的影响,能否对抗村委会行使合同解除权是本案争议焦点。经现场走访调查发现,案涉宾馆入住率极低、健身房大门紧闭、美容院生意惨淡,前榆顺达公司与次承租人的租赁合同纠纷也在法院审理过程中,前榆顺达公司确实遭遇严重经济困难。本案在现场勘验过程中立足于前榆顺达公司受到疫情影响进行现场调解,最终促使双方达成调解协议,并及时履行完毕。
The two parties reached a mediation agreement as follows: 1. Both parties would continuously perform the House Leasing Contract and the supplementary agreement; 2. The annual rent standard in 2022 would be adjusted to 4,603,366 yuan, and Qianyushunda Company would pay 2,301,683 yuan (fulfilled) to the Villagers' Committee before March 25, 2022 and pay 2,301,683 yuan before June 15, 2022; and future rent increments would be based on the annual rent amount adjusted in this clause for 2022, in accordance with the methods and standards agreed in the supplementary agreement. 双方达成调解协议如下:一、双方继续履行《房屋租赁合同》及补充协议;二、2022年年度租金标准调整为4 603 366元,前榆顺达公司于2022年3月25日前支付村委会2 301 683元(已履行完毕),于2022年6月15日前支付2 301 683元;以后租金的递增以本条款调整的2022年度租金金额为基数,按照补充协议约定的方式和标准递增。
[Significance] 【典型意义】
The first was accurately evaluating the breach of contract by micro, small and medium-sized enterprises affected by the epidemic situation, and judiciary assistance in the sound development of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. The existence of the leasing contract in this case was a major event related to the survival and development of a defendant company. The people's court implemented the Guiding Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Fully Maximizing the Role of Judicial Functions to Boost the Development of Micro, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, on the basis of the fact that Qianyushunda Company was greatly affected by the epidemic situation, facilitated reconciliation between the two parties and fulfilled it in a timely manner, having effectively protected Qianyushunda Company' survival and strongly solved the difficulties for the development of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. 一是准确评价受疫情影响的中小微企业违约行为,司法助力中小微企业健康发展。本案租赁合同存续是关乎被告公司生存发展的重大事件。人民法院贯彻落实最高人民法院《关于充分发挥司法职能作用助力中小微企业发展的指导意见》,立足前榆顺达公司受疫情影响较大,促成双方和解并及时履行,有效保护前榆顺达公司生存大计,强力为中小微企业发展解忧纾困。
The second was to comprehensively and equally protect the legitimate rights and interests of economic entities of different systems of ownership in accordance with the law, insisting on the equal treatment of various market entities, protecting the legitimate rights and interests of grass-roots mass autonomous organizations and private enterprises in accordance with the law, and reducing the costs of dispute resolution. After the case was opened, the court hearing and on-site inspection were organized in a timely manner, and during the on-site inspection, the opportunity was seized to facilitate mediation. It took 45 days from opening to closing of this case, having resolved disputes in a timely and efficient manner. 二是全面依法平等保护不同所有制经济主体的合法权益。坚持对各类市场主体平等对待,依法保护基层群众性自治组织和民营企业的合法权益,降低纠纷解决成本。本案立案后,及时组织开庭审理、现场勘验,并在勘验现场过程中,抓住时机,促成调解。本案从立案到结案,用时45天,及时高效化解纠纷。
The third was to gather positive energy to mediate to assist in enterprises and the epidemic situation. Opponents became friends, from tit-for-tat to mutual understanding to mutual concessions, which made social relations be no longer so cold, and the mediation results reflected the temperature of the times. Disputes had become public interests. In the context of epidemic prevention and control, an enterprise could fully understand the epidemic prevention work, contribute its own strength to the epidemic prevention work, and jointly fight against the epidemic situation, having demonstrated the core socialist values of harmony and friendliness. 三是汇聚正能量,调解助企又助疫。对手变朋友,从针锋相对到互相理解再到互让一步,让社会关系不再那么冰冷,调解结果折射出时代温度。纠纷变公益,在疫情防控的大背景下,作为企业能充分理解防疫工作,力所能及为防疫工作贡献自己的力量,携手抗疫,展现和谐、友善的社会主义核心价值观。
II. Case of Judgment of Acquittal Rendered upon Retrial of Zhang Wenzhong Who Was Charged with Committing Fraud, Offering Bribes to an Entity, and Embezzling Funds   二、张文中诈骗、单位行贿、挪用资金再审改判无罪案
[Basic Facts] 【基本案情】
The Intermediate People's Court of Hengshui City, Hebei Province held in the first instance that: 1. Defendant Zhang Wenzhong constituted a crime of fraud. At the beginning of 2002, Zhang Wenzhong learned that the state implemented the policy of subsidized treasury bonds for key enterprises and key projects, and that the batch of funds of subsidized treasury bonds for technological transformation projects were mainly used to support the technological transformation projects of state-owned enterprises, and Wumart Group, as a private enterprise, did not fall under the scope supported by funds of subsidized treasury bonds for technological transformation projects. Therefore, after discussing with the defendant Zhang Weichun in the same case, he decided to file applications in the name of a subsidiary of Chengtong Company, a state-owned enterprise. After the logistics project and information technology project for which Zhang Wenzhong filed applications were approved by the former State Economic and Trade Commission, Wumart Group did not implement the project, and obtained a loan amounting to 130 million yuan for the company's routine operation by entering into false contracts and issuing false invoices. On October 29, 2003, the Ministry of Finance allocated 31.9 million yuan of funds of subsidized treasury bonds for technological transformation projects to Chengtong Company, and then Chengtong Company remitted the funds to Wumart Group's account, and Wumart Group used the funds to repay the company's loan. 2. Defendant Zhang Wenzhong constituted the crime of offering bribes to an entity. In 2002, Wumart Group acquired 50 million shares of Taikang Company held by China International Travel Service. Zhao, and Zhao A, director of the office of China International Travel Service, actively coordinated and offered assistance. Afterwards, Zhang Wenzhong arranged for Zhang AA to pay Zhao A 300,000 yuan. In the same year, Wumart Group acquired 50 million shares of Taikang Company held by Guangdong Utrust Investment Holding Co., Ltd., hoping to get help from Liang A, general manager of Guangdong Utrust Investment Holding Co., Ltd., and Zhang Wenzhong arranged for Zhang AA to pay Liang A 5 million yuan. 3. Defendant Zhang Wenzhong constituted the crime of embezzling funds. In March 1997, Zhang Wenzhong and Chen AA, chairman of Taikang Company, agreed to embezzle Taikang Company's 40 million yuan of funds to apply for new stocks for profit. Zhang Wenzhong instructed Zhang AA to transfer 40 million yuan from Taikang Company to subscribe for new stocks, having made profits of more than 10 million yuan. Afterwards, Zhang AA returned 40 million yuan to Taikang Company. The Intermediate People's Court of Hengshui City, Hebei Province rendered first-instance judgment on October 9, 2008, determining that Zhang Wenzhong was guilty of fraud, offering bribes to entities, and embezzling funds, and sentencing him to an imprisonment of 18 years and a fine of 500,000 yuan by applying joinder of penalties for plural crimes; and recovering illegal income and turning over to the state treasury. Concurrently, Wumart Group and Zhang Weichun were also sentenced to corresponding penalties. After the first-instance judgment was pronounced, Zhang Wenzhong, Zhang Weichun and Wumart Group appealed. The High People's Court of Hebei Province rendered a second-instance judgment on March 30, 2009, determining that Zhang Wenzhong was guilty of fraud, offering bribes to entities, and embezzling funds and was sentenced to an imprisonment of 12 years and a fine of 500,000 yuan by applying joinder of penalties for plural crimes. After the judgment came into force, Zhang Wenzhong refused to accept it and appealed to the Supreme People's Court. The Supreme People's Court made a retrial decision on December 27, 2017, and retried this case. 河北省衡水市中级人民法院一审认定:1.被告张文中构成诈骗罪。2002年初,张文中得知国家对重点企业、重点项目实行国债贴息补贴政策,且该批国债技改贴息资金主要用于支持国有企业技术改造项目、物美集团作为民营企业不属于国债技改贴息资金支持范围,遂与同案被告人张伟春商量决定以国有企业诚通公司下属企业的名义进行申报。张文中申报的物流项目和信息化项目获得原国家经贸委审批后,物美集团未实施项目,并以签订虚假合同和开具虚假发票为手段,获得1.3亿元贷款,用于公司日常经营。2003年10月29日,财政部将3190万元国债技改贴息资金拨付到诚通公司,后诚通公司将该款汇入物美集团账户,物美集团将该款用于偿还公司贷款。2.被告张文中构成单位行贿罪。2002年物美集团收购国旅总社持有的泰康公司5000万股股份,国旅总社办公室主任赵某积极协调帮助,事后张文中安排张某某给付赵某30万元。同年,物美集团收购粤财公司持有的泰康公司5000万股股份,希望得到粤财公司总经理梁某帮助,事后张文中安排张某某给付梁某500万元。3.被告张文中构成挪用资金罪。1997年3月,张文中与泰康公司董事长陈某某商定挪用泰康公司的4000万元资金申购新股谋利。张文中指使张某某从泰康公司转出4000万元用于申购新股,盈利1000余万元。事后,张某某归还泰康公司4000万元。河北省衡水市中级人民法院于2008年10月9日作出一审判决,认定张文中犯诈骗罪、单位行贿罪、挪用资金罪,数罪并罚,判处有期徒刑十八年,并处罚金五十万元;违法所得予以追缴,上缴国库。同时,对物美集团、张伟春也判处了相应刑罚。一审宣判后,张文中、张伟春、物美集团不服,提出上诉。河北省高级人民法院于2009年3月30日作出二审判决,认定张文中犯诈骗罪、单位行贿罪、挪用资金罪,数罪并罚,改判有期徒刑十二年,并处罚金五十万元。判决生效后,张文中不服,向最高人民法院申诉,最高人民法院于2017年12月27日作出再审决定,提审本案。
[Adjudication] 【裁判结果】
In the retrial, the Supreme People's Court held that: When Wumart Group applied for technological transformation projects with subsidized treasury bonds, the policies of subsidized treasury bonds for technological transformation projects have been adjusted, private enterprises were qualified to file applications, and the logistics project and information technology project applied by Wumart Group were key supporting targets of subsidized treasury bonds for technological transformation projects and conformed to the national economic development situations and industrial policies at that time. In the process of project application, although, Zhang Wenzhong and Zhang Weichun, violated regulations, they neither committed any fraudulent act by making up facts and concealing the truth for defrauding subsidized treasury bonds for technological transformation projects nor had the subjective intent of illegally occupying the funds of subsidized treasury bonds for technological transformation projects amounting to 31.90 million yuan, which did not satisfy the constitutive requirements for the crime of fraud. Therefore, the original judgment was erroneous in the fact-finding and application of law for determining that the acts of Zhang Wenzhong and Zhang Weichun constituted fraud and it should be corrected according to the law. After purchasing the shares of Taikang Company held by the China International Travel Services, Wumart Group offered Zhao A 300,000 yuan as reward for go-between, which was not for seeking illegitimate benefits, was not a serious circumstance, and did not satisfy the constitutive requirements for a crime of offering bribes to an entity; after purchasing the shares of Taikang Company held by Guangdong Utrust Investment Holding Co., Ltd., Wumart Group paid Li AA Company 5 million yuan as claimed thereby, Wumart Group did not have the subjective intent of offering bribes for seeking illegitimate benefits, and Wumart Group's act did not satisfy the constitutive requirements for a crime of offering bribes to an entity. Therefore, Wumart Group's act did not constitute a crime of offering bribes to an entity. As the directly responsible person in charge of Wumart Group, Zhang Wenzhong should not be held criminally liable for the crime of offering bribes to an entity. The original judgment was erroneous in the fact-finding and application of law for determining that the acts of Wumart Group and Zhang Wenzhong constituted a crime of offering bribes to an entity and it should be legally corrected. The facts that Zhang Wenzhong conspired with Chen AA and Tian AA, and took advantage of Chen AA's position to transfer 40 million yuan of funds of Taikang Company where Chen AA works to the stock trading account of Custer Investment Consulting Center for profit-making activities were clear, and the evidence was sufficient. The original judgment had unclear facts and insufficient evidence in determining that Zhang Wenzhong embezzled funds for personal use and gain. Therefore, the original judgment was erroneous in the fact-finding and application of law for determining that Zhang Wenzhong's act constituted a crime of embezzling funds and it should be legally corrected. On May 30, 2018, the Supreme People's Court rendered a retrial judgment, set aside the first-instance and second-instance judgments. Zhang Wenzhong, Zhang Weichun, and Wumart Group were acquitted in the judgment rendered upon retrial and the fine that had been enforced and the property that had been recovered in the original judgment should be returned in accordance with the law. 最高人民法院再审认为,物美集团在申报国债技改贴息项目时,国债技改贴息政策已有所调整,民营企业具有申报资格,且物美集团所申报的物流项目和信息化项目均属于国债技改贴息重点支持对象,符合国家当时的经济发展形势和产业政策。张文中、张伟春在物美集团申报项目过程中,虽然存在违规行为,但未实施虚构事实、隐瞒真相以骗取国债技改贴息资金的诈骗行为,并无非法占有3190万元国债技改贴息资金的主观故意,不符合诈骗罪的构成要件。故原判认定张文中、张伟春的行为构成诈骗罪,属于认定事实和适用法律错误,应当依法予以纠正。物美集团在收购国旅总社所持泰康公司股份后,给予赵某30万元好处费的行为,并非为了谋取不正当利益,亦不属于情节严重,不符合单位行贿罪的构成要件;物美集团在收购粤财公司所持泰康公司股份后,向李某某公司支付500万元系被索要,且不具有为谋取不正当利益而行贿的主观故意,亦不符合单位行贿罪的构成要件,故物美集团的行为不构成单位行贿罪,张文中作为物美集团直接负责的主管人员,对其亦不应以单位行贿罪追究刑事责任。原判认定物美集团及张文中的行为构成单位行贿罪,属于认定事实和适用法律错误,应当依法予以纠正。张文中与陈某某、田某某共谋,并利用陈某某职务上的便利,将陈某某所在泰康公司4 000万元资金转至卡斯特投资咨询中心股票交易账户进行营利活动的事实清楚,证据确实。但原判认定张文中挪用资金归个人使用、为个人谋利的事实不清、证据不足。故原判认定张文中的行为构成挪用资金罪,属于认定事实和适用法律错误,应当依法予以纠正。2018年5月30日,最高人民法院作出再审判决,撤销原一、二审判决,改判张文中、张伟春、物美集团无罪,原审判决已执行的罚金及追缴的财产,依法予以返还。
[Significance] 【典型意义】
Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (“CPC”), the CPC Central Committee, with Comrade Xi Jinping as the core, practiced the people-oriented development philosophy, vigorously strengthened the protection of property rights, and attached great importance to the correction of wrongful cases involving property rights. The retrial of Zhang Wenzhong's case and the acquittal of Zhang Wenzhong fully reflected the strong determination of the CPC Central Committee to equally protect the economic property rights of various systems of ownership, including non-public economy, in accordance with the law, resolutely eliminate the constraint of the policy, legal and institutional obstacles and traditional concepts that affect the survival and development of private enterprises, unswervingly encourage, support and guide the development of the private economy, and strive to create a business environment governed by the rule of law; and also fully demonstrated the assumption of responsibilities by the people's court to fully maximize their judicial functions, effectively strengthen judicial protection of property rights, and insisting on correcting mistakes whenever discovered. For cases involving property rights that have been appropriately handled in accordance with the law, the legal principles of no punishment without a law, evidentiary adjudication, and no punishment in doubtful cases shall be strictly followed. It is strictly forbidden to treat economic disputes as economic crimes, and treat general violations of laws and regulations as criminal crimes, to effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of entrepreneurs and promote the sustainable and sound development of the economy and society, which has benchmark and great practical significance. 党的十八大以来,以习近平同志为核心的党中央践行以人民为中心的发展思想,大力加强产权保护,高度重视涉产权冤错案件的纠正工作。张文中案启动再审并改判无罪,充分体现了党中央依法平等保护包括非公有制经济在内的各种所有制经济产权,坚决消除影响民营企业生存发展的政策、法律和体制性障碍以及传统观念的束缚,毫不动摇地鼓励、支持、引导民营经济发展,努力打造法治化营商环境的坚强决心;也充分彰显了人民法院充分发挥审判职能作用,切实加强产权司法保护,坚持有错必纠的责任担当。对于依法妥善处理历史形成的涉产权案件,严格遵循罪刑法定、证据裁判、疑罪从无等法律原则,严禁把经济纠纷当作经济犯罪,把一般违法违规当作刑事犯罪来处理,切实保护企业家合法权益,促进经济社会持续健康发展,具有标杆性和重大现实意义。
III. Yanbian Branch of Yibin Fengyuan Salt Industry Co., Ltd. v. Dunhua City Salt Administration of Jilin Province (case of administrative compulsion)   三、宜宾丰源盐业有限公司延边分公司诉吉林省敦化市盐务管理局行政强制案
[Basic Facts] 【基本案情】
Yibin Fengyuan Salt Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Yibin Company”) had the table salt wholesale license issued by the competent department of salt industry of Sichuan Province. On July 24, 2018, Yibin Company formed Yanbian Branch of Yibin Fengyuan Salt Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Yanbian Branch”) in Dunhua City, Jilin Province. Its business scope was wholesale and sale of various salt products. Yibin Company notified the Jilin Provincial Salt Administration of the relevant information, and Yanbian Branch also underwent the recordation formalities with the Dunhua City Salt Administration of Jilin Province (hereinafter referred to as the “Dunhua Salt Administration”) for its business license, food business license, identification of the person in charge, etc. In August 2018, Yanbian branch conducted wholesale of table salt from Yibin Company, and then sold them in batches to many local retail stores, and issued invoices and sales and distribution orders in the name of the branch. On September 11, 2018, the Dunhua Salt Administration made a Written Decision of Seizure (Detainment) in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Administrative Compulsion Law of the People's Republic of China on the grounds that Yanbian Branch was suspected of engaging in salt wholesale business without a table salt wholesale license and violating the Measures for Monopoly of Table Salt, to seal up and detain the table salt stored by Yanbian Branch. On November 2, 2018, the Dunhua Salt Administration removed the administrative compulsory measures and returned the seized property. Yanbian branch instituted an action, requesting the court to confirm that the Written Decision of Seizure (Detainment) issued by the Dunhua Salt Administration was illegal. 宜宾丰源盐业有限公司(以下简称宜宾公司)具有四川省盐业主管部门颁发的食盐批发许可证。2018年7月24日,宜宾公司在吉林省敦化市设立宜宾丰源盐业有限公司延边分公司(以下简称延边分公司),经营范围为多品种盐的批发、销售等。宜宾公司向吉林省盐务管理局告知了相关信息,延边分公司也将其营业执照、食品经营许可证、负责人身份证明等向吉林省敦化市盐务管理局(以下简称敦化市盐务局)报备。2018年8月间,延边分公司从宜宾公司批进食盐,此后向当地多家零售商店批量销售,并以该分公司名义开具发票和销售配送单。2018年9月11日,敦化市盐务局以延边分公司涉嫌无食盐批发许可证从事食盐批发业务,违反《食盐专营办法》为由,根据《中华人民共和国行政强制法》的相关规定,作出《查封(扣押)决定书》,对延边分公司存储的食盐予以查封扣押。2018年11月2日,敦化市盐务局解除行政强制措施,将查封扣押财物退还。延边分公司提起诉讼,请求确认敦化市盐务局作出的《查封(扣押)决定书》违法。
...... 【裁判结果】
 人民法院生效裁判认为,宜宾公司已经合法取得四川省盐业主管部门颁发的食盐批发许可证,延边分公司以总公司的行政许可跨省销售食盐不违反《食盐专营办法》的相关规定,亦符合《国务院关于印发盐业体制改革方案的通知》(国发〔2016〕25号)等有关盐业体制改革的精神。敦化市盐务局以延边分公司未取得当地盐业主管部门的销售许可为由作出被诉行政强制措施,缺乏事实和法律依据,故判决确认敦化市盐务局作出的《查封(扣押)决定书》违法。
 【典型意义】
 自2014年起,国家出台了一系列政策,对食盐生产、运输、销售行政许可等进行重大体制改革。国务院于2016年4月22日颁布的《国务院关于印发盐业体制改革方案的通知》,明确提出要释放市场活力,取消食盐产销区域限制。国家发展和改革委员会、工业和信息化部配套下发的相关文件进一步明确:从2017年1月1日开始,现有省级食盐批发企业、中国盐业总公司和取得食盐批发许可证的食盐定点生产企业可以开展跨省(自治区、直辖市)自主经营,食盐批发企业可以通过跨区“自建分公司”的形式进行食盐销售业务。《国务院关于印发盐业体制改革方案的通知》系国家有关盐业体制改革的政策文件,与《食盐专营办法》的立法宗旨一致。《食盐专营办法》等未明确要求食盐生产批发企业通过跨区“自建分公司”的形式进行食盐销售业务时,必须取得当地盐业主管部门另行颁发的行政许可。本案中,宜宾公司持有有效的食盐批发许可证。敦化市盐务局作出《查封(扣押)决定书》缺乏事实和法律依据,亦与国家盐业体制改革方向相悖。人民法院立足国家盐业体制改革大局,正确领会《国务院关于印发盐业体制改革方案的通知》精神,准确适用《食盐专营办法》,监督市场监管执法,破除盐业区域壁垒,有利于持续优化法治化营商环境,促进统一市场高效畅通。
 ......



Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com


 


您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区,如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户,请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员 。如有问题请来电咨询;
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com


     
     
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝www.lawinfochina.com
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code!
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials.
 
Home | Products and Services | FAQ | Disclaimer | Chinese | Site Map
©2012 Chinalawinfo Co., Ltd.    database@chinalawinfo.com  Tel: +86 (10) 8268-9699  京ICP证010230-8