At 3 PM on December 24, a farmer in Yancheng, Jiangsu province, who made a profit of 180 yuan by selling a sheep was fined 100,000 yuan by the Dafeng District Market Supervision Bureau, and the second instance of the Yancheng Intermediate Court 17 court was held in public.
Before the formal administrative punishment, the Dafeng District Market Supervision Bureau conducted a hearing and announced the inspection and quarantine conclusion “in line with the standard.” After collective discussion, “Chen Guangfang’s statement of exemption or mitigation of punishment is not accepted”, and finally combined with the meat inspection and the special circumstances of the family, the administrative penalty of 100,000 yuan, confiscation of 4 sheep carcasses, 6 sheep heads and confiscation of illegal income of 180 yuan.
The first-instance judgment held that the administrative punishment decision made by the administrative organ involved in the case was clear in identifying the facts, the evidence was indeed sufficient, the application of the law was correct, the amount of punishment was appropriate, and the procedure was legal. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim accordingly. Chen Guangfang refused to accept this and appealed to the Yancheng Intermediate People’s Court.
According to the provisions of the Food Safety Law and the Regulations on the management of pig slaughtering, farmers should declare quarantine to the local animal health supervision agency before slaughtering themselves to prevent the spread of diseases.
The staff of the Dafeng District market Supervision Bureau who attended the trial believe that Chen Guangfang is an individual industrial and commercial unit registered in 2000, engaged in related operations for more than 20 years, knowing or should know that sheep’s head and mutton need to be inspected and quarantined before entering the market for circulation and sales, without penalty, and the mutton that has been sold cannot be tested, and the harmful consequences cannot be eliminated.
There are no statutory mitigating circumstances. In accordance with superior regulations and special action deployment, it is necessary to strictly investigate and punish illegal acts of selling meat without inspection and quarantine, and any lenient or mitigated punishment must be proved by evidence.
During the trial, the appellant Chen Guangfang admitted in court that the lamb involved was illegal without quarantine, but repeatedly defended himself as “doing good deeds!” Gu, who is suffering from cancer, is in urgent need of money, so he can help slaughter and sell mutton, hoping that the court can consider the actual difficulties of the family.
The reporter learned from the interview that the six sheep involved were raised by the villagers of Changan Village, Xintuan Town, Dafeng District, and Gu Delan died during the punishment of the case. In a handwritten note asking law enforcement authorities for leniency, Mr. Gu’s brother, Gu Dekui, wrote: “Because my brother was sick, had terminal cancer, asked me to help him dispose of a few sheep, the cost of medical treatment, I helped him find a sheep seller, people refused, and then repeatedly asked people to help dispose of the sheep, that (which) knew that it was investigated by the industry and Commerce Department, said it was illegal, I am sorry to people.”
In the trial, the chief judge organized the court investigation and the court debate around the four focal issues of the administrative penalty, such as the fact determination, law enforcement procedures, applicable laws, and penalty range, and the attitudes of the two sides were once relatively opposite.
Chen Guangfang, a lawyer who attended the trial, believed that the case handling organ did not carry out the necessary market price investigation or identification, and identified the value of the goods involved, and there were mistakes in the administrative penalty decision such as unclear facts and lack of effective evidence support, and that the case should not only accurately apply the food safety law, but also according to the relevant provisions of the Administrative Penalty Law.
As well as the provisions of the General Administration of Market Supervision’s “Guiding Opinions on Regulating the Discretion of Administrative Penalties in Market Supervision” and the “Provisions on the Application of the Discretion of Administrative Penalties in Market Supervision in Jiangsu Province”, the punishment will be reduced or exempted based on the facts of the whole case.
It is understood that the food safety law stipulates that “meat that is not quarantined according to regulations, and the value of the illegal production and operation of the food is less than 10,000 yuan, and a fine of more than 100,000 yuan and less than 150,000 yuan shall be imposed.” The reporter consulted the relevant provisions of the “Jiangsu Province Market Supervision Administrative Punishment Discretion applicable provisions”, of which article 8 stipulates: the illegal behavior is minor and corrected in time, and no harm is caused, no administrative punishment.
Those who violate the law for the first time and the harmful consequences are minor and corrected in time may not be subject to administrative punishment. Article 10 provides five circumstances that can be lightened or mitigated according to law, including: actively cooperate with the investigation of the market supervision department and proactively provide evidence materials; The illegal act is minor and does little harm to society.
Playing a secondary or auxiliary role in a joint illegal act; The party concerned has real difficulties in living due to disability or serious illness or other reasons; Other administrative penalties that may be lightened or mitigated according to law.
Related topics
