catalogue

1. Nanjing Faershi New Energy Co., Ltd. v. Administrative Decision of Jiangning District People's Government of Nanjing City

2. Administrative Penalty Case of Jiangxi Salt Industry Group Company Ji'an Company v. Ji'an Administration for Industry and Commerce

3. Hongrun Supermarket in Erling Town, Danyang City v. Administrative Registration Case of Danyang Market Supervision and Administration Bureau

4. Administrative Supervision Case of Deqing Moganshan Snake Industry Co., Ltd. v. Zhejiang Food and Drug Administration

5. Shanghai Huici Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. v. Chongming County Finance Bureau Administrative Decision Case

6. Administrative Penalty Case of Qingdao Aisimeng Food Co., Ltd. v. Qingdao Administration for Industry and Commerce Sifang Branch

7. Administrative Agreement Case of Pingxiang Yapeng Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. v. Pingxiang Land and Resources Bureau

8. Qingdao Aoguangtong Machinery Construction Co., Ltd. v. Jimo Administration for Industry and Commerce for Administrative Omission

9. Fujian Xinxin Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. v. Pinghe County Administration for Industry and Commerce Administrative Penalty Case

10. Zhou Ketian, Wei Dazhi, Chen Fengjiao, He Xiangzeng v. China Securities Regulatory Commission for Administrative Penalty Case

1、 Nanjing Falshi New Energy Co., Ltd. v. Administrative Decision of Jiangning District People's Government of Nanjing City

（1） Basic facts of the case

In July 2010, the Development and Reform Commission of Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province registered 10 enterprises as designated units for the recycling and processing of waste edible oils, including Nanjing Falshi Chemical Factory and Nanjing Lisheng Waste Oil Recycling and Treatment Center. In November 2012, the People's Government of Jiangning District, Nanjing City (hereinafter referred to as the Jiangning District Government) issued Notice No. 396 (2012) on the Issuance of the Jiangning District Food and Kitchen Waste Management Work Plan (hereinafter referred to as Document No. 396), It is clear that "Nanjing Lisheng Renewable Resources Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Lisheng Company) is currently designated to carry out the collection and transportation of kitchen waste in the entire district." The urban management bureau and district commerce bureau of the district issued an official letter in March 2014, requesting the implementation of the provisions of Document No. 396. Each pig slaughterhouse must sign a clearance agreement with Lisheng Company, otherwise administrative penalties will be imposed. Nanjing Falshi New Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Falshi Company) is not satisfied with Document No. 396 and has filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting the revocation of the designation of Lisheng Company in the document and compensation for losses.

（2） Judgment results

The Nanjing Intermediate People's Court held in the first instance that the defendant Jiangning District Government's designation in Document No. 396 actually affirmed the qualification of Lisheng Company to carry out food and kitchen waste business in Jiangning District, constituting a substantive administrative license. The official letters issued by the District Urban Management Bureau and the District Commerce Bureau have indicated that the defendant's designated behavior has actually been implemented. According to the relevant provisions of the Administrative Licensing Law, administrative organs shall perform corresponding administrative procedures when accepting, reviewing, and making administrative licenses. The defendant did not perform any administrative procedures before making the appointment, so the accused administrative action procedure is illegal. The defendant adopted a direct designated method without fair competition such as bidding, which excluded other potential market participants and constituted a restriction of market competition through administrative power, in violation of Article 19 of the Jiangsu Province Food and Kitchen Waste Management Measures and Article 32 of the Anti Monopoly Law. The defendant has made necessary regulations and restrictions on the normal operation of the food and kitchen waste disposal market in order to strengthen its supervision, but should not explicitly designate a certain company in administrative documents. The plaintiff, Falsi Company, did not submit evidence to prove its claim for compensation, and the court did not support it. Therefore, the judgment revokes the defendant's designated administrative action against Lisheng Company in Document No. 396, and rejects the plaintiff's other litigation claims. After the first instance verdict, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case involving administrative monopoly. Administrative monopoly refers to the abuse of administrative power by administrative agencies, illegal raising of market access thresholds, illegal designation of specific enterprises to engage in specific businesses, and illegal setting of conditions to restrict other enterprises from participating in competition. It infringes on the fair competition rights of market entities, causing significant damage and adverse effects on the normal operation of economic activities, the free circulation of goods, and even the internal and external image of the government. China's Anti Monopoly Law and Anti Unfair Competition Law explicitly prohibit this. In this case, the Jiangning District Government directly designated a company for promotion in administrative documents, without fair competition methods such as bidding, excluding other potential market participants, which constitutes an illegal situation of restricting market competition through administrative power. The people's courts make judgments in accordance with the law, which has a positive guiding significance. The newly revised Administrative Litigation Law explicitly includes "abusing administrative power to infringe on the right to fair competition" within the scope of cases, in order to highlight the strong maintenance of normal market competition order by administrative trials. With the continuous progress of the rule of law, various market entities such as citizens and legal persons will play an increasingly important role in using administrative litigation legal weapons to safeguard their rights, supervise and regulate administrative monopolies in accordance with the law.

2、 Administrative Penalty Case of Jiangxi Salt Industry Group Company Ji'an Company v. Ji'an Administration for Industry and Commerce

（1） Basic facts of the case

The Salt Bureau of Ji'an City, Jiangxi Province is an authorized salt industry regulatory agency by the State Council. Ji'an Company (hereinafter referred to as Ji'an Salt Company), a Jiangxi Salt Industry Group, is an enterprise registered with the industrial and commercial department and has obtained a business license (with a business scope of table salt, various types of salt, site leasing, daily necessities, etc.). The two belong to one set of people and two brands. As Ji'an Salt Company is not only specialized in the wholesale business of salt, but also operates general merchandise. In order to improve enterprise efficiency, some of its salesmen force to match non salt commodities (edible oil, Baijiu, etc.) or low sodium salt and deep well salt in the process of salt distribution, or stop supplying salt on the ground of no high sodium salt (medium salt) or no salt. Some edible salt retailers are dissatisfied and have complained to the Ji'an Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce). The bureau has issued two notices to Ji'an Salt Industry Company in 2012 and 2013 ordering correction. After being investigated by the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce and informed of the company's hearing rights and statements, an administrative penalty decision was made in July 2014: ordering the cessation of illegal activities and imposing a fine of 160000 yuan. Ji'an Salt Industry Company is not satisfied and applies for administrative reconsideration. The reconsideration authority maintains the above punishment decision. The company filed a lawsuit to the court requesting the revocation of the administrative penalty decision of the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Jizhou District, Ji'an City held in the first instance that the plaintiff, Ji'an Salt Industry Company, as a national salt monopoly enterprise, has statutory exclusive management rights and has a different dominant position over salt retailers compared to other ordinary operators, but its business subjects and status should be equal. In opening a variety of business activities, the plaintiff, taking advantage of its exclusive position in the wholesale and distribution of food salt, forced food salt retailers to tie in low sodium salt, non salt commodities, edible oil, washing products, Baijiu and other commodities, which constituted restricting others to buy the goods of its designated operator, and violated Article 6 of the Anti unfair Competition Law, Therefore, the judgment upheld the administrative penalty decision made by the defendant Ji'an City Administration for Industry and Commerce. After the company appealed, the Intermediate People's Court of Ji'an City ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of administrative authorities investigating and punishing unfair competition behavior in accordance with the law. One of the prominent manifestations of unfair competition behavior is that operators such as public enterprises, who have a monopoly position in accordance with the law, restrict others to purchase the goods of their designated operators, or tie up goods against the wishes of buyers or attach other unreasonable conditions. These behaviors seriously violate the fair competition rights of other operators, exclude or deprive others of fair opportunities to obtain wealth. To establish an equal, free, and orderly market order, it is necessary to fully protect the fair competition rights of the majority of operators. This right is the fundamental right for various market entities to engage in business activities, and is a ballast for stabilizing market order and stimulating innovation vitality. In this case, Ji'an Salt Industry Company used its exclusive operating rights to forcibly tie up non salt commodities, which is a typical unfair competition behavior. The industrial and commercial authorities investigated and punished the company's forced tying behavior based on reports, which is a correct function of stopping and punishing illegal business activities and ensuring market order. The court's ruling demonstrates the strong protection of fair competition rights by administrative trials, the strong support for strict law enforcement by administrative agencies, and the strong promotion of the sustained and healthy development of the market economy.

3、 Hongrun Supermarket in Erling Town, Danyang City v. Administrative Registration Case of Danyang Market Supervision and Administration Bureau

（1） Basic facts of the case

In February 2015, Hongrun Supermarket (hereinafter referred to as Hongrun Supermarket) in Erling Town, Danyang City, Jiangsu Province submitted an application for the change of registration of individual industrial and commercial households to the Municipal Market Supervision Administration (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Market Supervision Bureau), applying to add vegetable retail projects within the business scope approved by the original business license. In February 2015, the bureau issued a notice of acceptance for the change of registration of individual businesses to Hongrun Supermarket. Subsequently, the materials were reviewed and on-site investigations were conducted to verify that the business premises of Hongrun Supermarket were less than 200 meters away from Erling Farmers' Market in Danyang City, Its application does not comply with the provisions of the "Notice on Forwarding the Construction Norms of Danyang Vegetable Market" issued by the Danzheng Office of the People's Government of Danyang City (2012) No. 29 (hereinafter referred to as the "Notice No. 29"), which states that "no agricultural and sideline product sales outlets similar to the operation of the vegetable market shall be established within a range of 200 meters around the vegetable market". Therefore, a rejection notice was issued, and it was decided not to register its change application. Hongrun Supermarket filed a lawsuit to the court, requesting the revocation of the rejection notice and ordering the registration of changes to its application.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Danyang City held in the first instance that Article 4 of the "Regulations on Individual Industrial and Commercial Households" stipulates that the state implements the principles of equal market access and fair treatment for individual industrial and commercial households. If an application is made for the registration of individual industrial and commercial households, and the business scope of the application does not belong to industries prohibited by laws and administrative regulations, the registration authority shall register it in accordance with the law. In this case, the plaintiff, Hongrun Supermarket, applied for a change in registration to increase the business project of vegetable retail, which is not an industry prohibited by laws and administrative regulations. The defendant's Market Supervision Bureau applies the provision in Document No. 29 that "no agricultural and sideline product distribution network similar to the operation of the vegetable market shall be established within a range of 200 meters around the vegetable market", and does not register the plaintiff's application. However, this provision is inconsistent with the "Standardized Vegetable Market Setting and Management Standards" issued by the Ministry of Commerce, It is inconsistent with the "Guiding Opinions of 13 Departments including the Ministry of Commerce on Further Strengthening the Construction of the Agricultural Product Market System" (7), which states "actively developing various retail formats such as vegetable markets, convenience stores, affordable stores, and community e-commerce direct trains", and also violates the principles of equal market access and fair treatment mentioned above. It cannot be used as a basis for determining the legality of the sued registration behavior in accordance with the law. The judgment revokes the notice of rejection related to the case, and the defendant makes a new registration of the plaintiff's application within 15 working days after the judgment takes effect. After the first instance judgment was pronounced, neither party appealed, and the defendant has re processed the change approval registration for the plaintiff.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of administrative agencies violating the principles of equal market access and fair treatment. This principle is not only clearly stipulated in Article 4 of the Individual Business Regulations, but also reflected in numerous other laws, regulations, and international treaties. The operation of modern economy largely relies on the "invisible hand" of the market to play a decisive role in resource allocation. In the process of implementing management, the government should identify its positioning, correctly guide, guide, and regulate the market, and avoid various improper interventions and restrictions. In this case, the Municipal Market Supervision and Administration Bureau did not support the application of Hongrun Supermarket to change its business scope according to the Municipal Government Document No. 29. The court ruled to revoke the sued administrative action, which not only protected the legitimate rights and interests of operators, but also reflected equal protection for different market entities. At the same time, it also had a positive impact on the reasonable establishment of local vegetable markets and the convenience of people's production and life. It is worth mentioning that the court has applied Article 64 of the newly revised Administrative Litigation Law, which clearly states that the Municipal Government's Document No. 29 is not only inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the Ministry of Commerce, but also violates the principles of equal market access and fair treatment implemented by the state for individual businesses, and cannot be used as a basis for the legality of administrative actions. It effectively implements the spirit of the amendment of the Administrative Litigation Law, It has the epochal significance of reviewing the "red headed documents" (normative documents) together.

4、 Deqing Moganshan Snake Industry Co., Ltd. v. Zhejiang Provincial Food and Drug Administration for Administrative Supervision

（1） Basic facts of the case

In October 2013, the Food and Drug Administration of Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province randomly inspected a batch of San She Powder capsules produced by Deqing Moganshan Snake Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Moganshan Company). The inspection report issued by the Provincial Institute for Food and Drug Inspection and Research on the submitted samples showed a mercury content of 0.5mg/kg. After the company applied for retesting, the retest result from the Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention showed a mercury content of 0.45mg/kg. The Provincial Food and Drug Administration (hereinafter referred to as the Provincial Food and Drug Administration), in accordance with the "General Standard for Health (Functional) Food" (GB16740-1997, which stipulates that the limit of harmful metals and substances in capsule products should be ≤ 0.3mg/kg), determined that the mercury in the tested sample exceeded the standard and was classified as an unqualified product. In August 2014, it reported to each district and city The Market Supervision and Administration Bureau of Yiwu City issued the "Notice on the Results of Provincial Health Food and Cosmetics Supervision and Inspection in 2013" (Zhe Shi Yao Jian Ji [2014] No. 15), notifying unqualified products (including the aforementioned capsules) in the inspection and publishing them on the bureau's website. Moganshan Company believes that there are errors in the identification standards in the testing report, and the sampled samples should be subject to the registered enterprise standards. The bureau has reported on its website that the company's product non-compliance seriously affects its reputation. Therefore, the lawsuit is filed with the court, requesting the revocation of the notification in Zhejiang Food and Drug Administration (2014) No. 15 that the above-mentioned products were found to have failed the supervision and sampling inspection.

（2） Judgment results

After first instance, the People's Court of Xihu District, Hangzhou City found that the first test result of the disputed product showed a mercury content of 0.5mg/kg, and after retesting, the mercury content was 0.45mg/kg, which does not comply with the national mandatory standard (GB16740-1997, should be ≤ 0.3mg/kg) and is considered an unqualified product. The plaintiff, Moganshan Company, has proposed that it has established enterprise standards for the disputed products and has filed them for record, indicating that their products comply with these standards. However, the limit indicator requirements for mercury content in enterprise standards do not comply with national standards and cannot counter the effectiveness of mandatory national standards. The defendant's Provincial Food and Drug Administration has the legal responsibility to monitor and evaluate food safety, inspect, and publish food safety information, and has the right to disclose inspection information to the society. The list published on its website does not expand the plaintiff's actual range of sampled products, which complies with legal procedures. The original lawsuit request was rejected in the judgment. After the first instance verdict, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of maintaining market safety and public health. A prosperous market must be a safe and people-oriented market. Especially the quality of food and drugs in circulation is directly related to the lives and health of the people, and relevant national standards must be strictly implemented. Even registered enterprise standards must comply with national mandatory standards. In this case, although Moganshan Company emphasized that the sampled products should be subject to registered enterprise standards, the food and drug supervision department strictly enforced the law, determined that the sampled products were not qualified, and claimed that the products were food as defined by the Food Safety Law. Mandatory national standards have been announced and implemented, and production enterprises must comply. The people's court supported this and clearly stated in the judgment that the limit indicator requirements for mercury content in enterprise standards do not comply with national standards and cannot counter the effectiveness of mandatory national standards. It can be said that the full play of administrative trial functions has positive practical significance for maintaining market safety, protecting public health, and promoting administrative agencies to strictly control the production, sales, and other aspects of food and drugs in accordance with the law.

5、 Shanghai Huici Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. v. Chongming County Finance Bureau Administrative Decision Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On June 1, 2012, the Shanghai Chongming County Government Procurement Center was entrusted by the County Maternal and Child Health Center to organize a bidding for the government procurement project of high-frequency X-ray camera equipment. Four companies, including Shanghai Huici Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Huici Company) and Yuman Company, participated in the registration process. The bidding documents contain specific requirements such as "European and American first tier brands". After winning the bid through competitive negotiations, Yuman Company raised doubts on the grounds that Huici's bidding equipment is a domestic brand and does not belong to the "first tier European and American brands" required by the bidding documents. The procurement center of the Houxian County Government organized an expert review and wrote back to Huici Company, stating: "Our center maintains the expert's review opinion and has not made a substantive response to your company's bidding documents, which will result in the rejection of the bid. At the same time, we suggest that this bid be disposed of as a rejected bid. Huici Company filed a complaint with the County Finance Bureau. After review, the bureau issued the Complaint Handling Decision No. 9 (2012) of Chongcaiku, which determined that the products set in the bidding documents were European and American brands and were restricted as substantive clauses, which were clearly discriminatory. According to Article 18 of the Measures for Handling Complaints from Government Procurement Suppliers, it is decided to order the resumption of procurement activities. Huici Company filed a lawsuit to the court, requesting the revocation of the county finance bureau's aforementioned handling decision.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Chongming County held in the first instance that the defendant's County Finance Bureau conducted a comprehensive review of the government procurement activities related to the plaintiff Huici Company's complaint, and found that the product set in the bidding documents was a European and American brand, with substantive provisions restricting it, which was clearly discriminatory and violated the provisions of Article 22 (2) of the Government Procurement Law. Therefore, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the "Measures for Handling Complaints from Government Procurement Suppliers", the defendant made a decision to handle the complaint, and the procedure was legal, The facts are clear, the applicable law is correct, and the judgment rejects the plaintiff's lawsuit request. After the appeal by Huici Company, the Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court held in the second instance that the respondent's county finance bureau determined that the terms of the bidding documents were discriminatory and the facts were clear; According to Article 22 of the Government Procurement Law and other provisions, there is no improper application of law in making the decision to handle the lawsuit. Meanwhile, according to Article 10 of the Government Procurement Law, government procurement should prioritize the procurement of domestic goods, engineering, and services. The bidding documents limit the brand of purchased products to European and American brands, and do not comply with the above regulations. The appeal was dismissed and the original judgment upheld.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case involving government procurement. Government procurement usually refers to the behavior of government agencies, public institutions, and others using financial funds to purchase goods, projects, and services according to legal requirements and standards. It is a market transaction activity that is subject to certain restrictions and has a clear bottom line. It needs to consider multiple factors such as the reasonable use of public funds, the quality of purchased products or services, and the reasonable returns of suppliers. If not regulated by law and calculated carefully, it will result in cost waste High quality and price can even breed corruption, damage public interests, and undermine the government's image. Article 22 of the Government Procurement Law stipulates that suppliers shall not be subjected to differential or discriminatory treatment under unreasonable conditions, and Article 10 stipulates that, except for specific exceptions, priority shall be given to the procurement of domestic goods, engineering, and services. In this case, the bidding documents for the medical equipment involved set the product as a "first tier European and American brand", excluding non European and American brand product suppliers, and failing to give all potential suppliers equal opportunities for fair competition, which has a clear tendency and violates the above principles. The People's Court hereby supports the county finance bureau's decision to handle the lawsuit and rejects the lawsuit request of Huici Company, highlighting the practical value of the aforementioned government procurement principles, which has important reference significance for similar cases in the future.

6、 Qingdao Aisimeng Food Co., Ltd. v. Qingdao Administration for Industry and Commerce Sifang Branch Administrative Penalty Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Qingdao Aisimeng Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Aisimeng Company) imported a batch of ice cream from Russia in June 2012 and sold it all to Qingdao Zhongheng Yida Company (hereinafter referred to as Zhongheng Company). It was stored in a cold storage rented by Zhongheng Company, and the batch of ice cream was sold without Chinese labels. In February 2013, the Sifang Branch of the Qingdao Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Sifang Branch) seized 283 boxes of Russian imported pre packaged ice cream (all without Chinese labels) that had not been sold by Zhongheng Company in the cold storage. Zhongheng Company acknowledges that the batch of ice cream was purchased from Aisimong Company in June 2012, and included a total of 1300 boxes of two flavors of ice cream at the time of purchase (none of which were labeled in Chinese). The Industrial and Commercial Sifang Branch made a corresponding administrative penalty decision against Zhongheng Company in March 2013 (to be dealt with separately). Subsequently, based on the clues found in the above-mentioned case, an administrative penalty decision was made on May 17, 2013 against Aisimong Company: it was found that the company's operation of imported pre packaged food ice cream without Chinese labels violated the relevant provisions of the Food Safety Law, and it was ordered to immediately stop the illegal act and fined RMB 300000. Aisimeng Company filed a lawsuit to the court, requesting the revocation of its punishment decision.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Shibei District, Qingdao City held in the first instance that the evidence collected by the defendant's Industrial and Commercial Sifang Branch can prove the fact that the plaintiff, Aisimong Company, sold a total of 1300 boxes of two flavors of ice cream imported from Russia to Zhongheng Company without any Chinese labels. According to Article 66 and Article 86 (2) of the Food Safety Law, imported pre packaged food shall have Chinese labels and instructions. The plaintiff sold imported pre packaged food ice cream without Chinese labels to Zhongheng Company, which clearly violated the above regulations. The defendant's administrative penalty decision was correct, and the original lawsuit request was rejected. After the appeal of Aisimeng Company, the Qingdao Intermediate People's Court ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of mandatory requirements for imported goods. With the rapid development of international trade, the flow of goods and personnel between China and other countries is becoming increasingly frequent. The supervision of various imported commodities and goods not only involves quality, price, taxation, but also a series of issues such as usage safety and public health. Imported food is an area that requires high attention and attention. According to Article 66 of China's Food Safety Law and other regulations, imported pre packaged food should have Chinese labels and instructions, otherwise it cannot be imported. Production and operation of unlabeled pre packaged food and imported food additives must be labeled in Chinese before they can be put on the shelves. In this case, the Sifang Branch of Industry and Commerce imposed administrative penalties on Aisimeng Company for violating the above regulations in accordance with the law. The court supported this, which is conducive to ensuring the safety of imported food and public health, and preventing and eliminating the phenomenon of uneven and mixed quality imported products in the market. The judgment in this case has reference and reference value for the market guidance of foreign trade operators and the handling of similar administrative cases.

7、 Administrative Agreement Case of Pingxiang Yapeng Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. v. Pingxiang Land and Resources Bureau

（1） Basic facts of the case

In February 2004, Yapeng Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yapeng Company) in Pingxiang City, Jiangxi Province, obtained the land use right of the involved plot (originally used as the land for the city's meat joint processing plant) through bidding and bidding. Subsequently, a state-owned land use right transfer contract was signed with the Pingxiang Municipal Land and Resources Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau), stipulating that "the development land is a comprehensive commercial and residential land, and the refrigeration workshop maintains its current status". The Municipal Land and Resources Bureau has issued two state-owned land use certificates to the company, one of which is registered as "industrial". Yapeng Company believes that the agreed "maintenance of the status quo of the refrigeration workshop" is to maintain the use function of the refrigeration warehouse, not to maintain the nature of the land type, and requests that the land type of the certificate be corrected from "industrial" to "comprehensive commercial and residential"; However, the Municipal Bureau of Land and Resources believes that maintaining the status quo refers to the preservation of the nature of industrial land transfer in the refrigeration workshop, and the company also pays land use rights transfer fees for industrial land transfer in accordance with the refrigeration workshop, so it does not agree to correct the land use. The Houshi Planning Bureau replied to the Municipal Land Acquisition and Reserve Center, clarifying that the land use nature of the involved plot is commercial and residential comprehensive land (including approximately 7300 square meters of refrigeration workshop), and pointed out that "maintaining the current status of refrigeration workshop" refers to temporarily maintaining its use function. In February 2013, the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau provided a written response to Yapeng Company: 1. Agreed to change the land use of the refrigeration workshop in the involved plot from industrial land to commercial and residential land; 2. If the land use for the refrigeration workshop is changed from industrial land to commercial and residential land, a land transfer fee of 2.0836 million yuan should be paid; 3. After the land use adjustment of the refrigeration workshop, its use function cannot be changed without the approval of the municipal government. Yapeng Company filed a lawsuit against it and requested that the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau fulfill the terms of the transfer contract, correct the land use on the relevant land certificate, and revoke the second item of the response.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Anyuan District, Pingxiang City held in the first instance that the ownership of the land involved in the case was originally transferred from the city's meat joint processing factory. The city's land acquisition and reserve center, after obtaining approval from the city's government in accordance with the law, publicly listed and transferred the land. The nature of the land is commercial and residential comprehensive land, and the refrigeration workshop remains the current state. There is no refrigeration workshop land that is industrial land. The reply from the Municipal Planning Bureau confirms that the land used for the refrigeration workshop is a comprehensive commercial and residential land. Yapeng Company requested to correct the registered land use, but there was no need to make a supplementary payment. Therefore, the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau was ordered to correct the land use recorded in the relevant certificate within 90 days from the effective date; Revoke the decision to pay a supplementary land transfer fee of 2.0836 million yuan in response to the second item mentioned above. After the appeal by the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau, the Intermediate People's Court of Pingxiang City held in the second instance that due to different understandings between the two parties regarding the expression of land use in the land transfer contract, the Municipal Planning Bureau made a special response, and Yapeng Company requested the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau to correct it with legitimate reasons. The company, as the land transferee, paid the full price as agreed. The Municipal Land and Resources Bureau believed that if the land use was changed, the additional land transfer fee should be paid, which lacked factual and legal basis and violated the principle of good faith. Therefore, the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case involving administrative agreements. Administrative agreement is an agreement signed by administrative organs within the scope of their statutory responsibilities, in consultation with citizens, legal persons, or other organizations, in order to achieve public interests or administrative management goals, with rights and obligations under administrative law. In this case, the administrative agreement is the contract for the transfer of state-owned land use rights signed by the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau on behalf of the state and Yapeng Company. Under the conditions of modern market economy, whether the government plays the role of manager and server of economic activities, or directly participates as a market entity, it is increasingly adopting the method of signing administrative agreements to achieve the transformation of government functions and management methods. Administrative agreements emphasize honesty, trustworthiness, equality, and voluntariness. Once signed, all parties must strictly abide by them. Without justifiable reasons, administrative agencies may not add obligations of the other party or unilaterally modify or terminate the agreement. When there is a dispute, if the parties in this case have different understandings of the clause related to "maintaining the status quo of the refrigeration workshop" in the contract, the administrative authority shall not arbitrarily make explanations that are unfavorable to the administrative counterpart. The court not only ruled that the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau fulfilled its contractual obligations, but also revoked the unilateral decision made by the bureau to pay the land transfer fee, directly responding to the demands of the parties and substantially resolving the dispute between the two parties. It is worth noting that in the past, the channels for accepting administrative agreements were different, and the newly revised Administrative Litigation Law was uniformly included in the scope of accepting administrative litigation cases. With the continuous development of the economy and society and the increasing number of administrative agreements, administrative trials will also play an increasingly important role in this field.

8、 Qingdao Aoguangtong Machinery Construction Co., Ltd. v. Jimo Administration for Industry and Commerce for Administrative Omission

（1） Basic facts of the case

On March 9, 2014, Qingdao Aoguangtong Machinery Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Aoguangtong Company) reported to the Administration for Industry and Commerce of Jimo City, Shandong Province (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce) that Wang and Yao had forged business licenses and other documents, falsely using the company's name for loans, and requested the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce to investigate and deal with the forgery of their official seals and business licenses. On March 19, 2014, the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce investigated the Sanlizhuang Branch of Qingdao Rural Commercial Bank Co., Ltd., proving that Wang had borrowed money from the branch under the name of Aoguangtong Company. On March 21, 2014, the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce issued a notice of refusal to file a case, believing that the reported matters of Aoguangtong Company were not within the jurisdiction of the bureau. The main reason was that the company failed to provide information on the external operations of the reported person under its name, and after multiple contacts, the reported person could not be found. The reported person had a lending relationship with the bank and should be under the jurisdiction of the China Banking Regulatory Commission. On June 30, 2014, the Qingdao Regulatory Bureau of the China Banking Regulatory Commission mentioned in relevant letters that the enterprise legal person information in credit materials such as the "Query Results of Private Enterprise Registration Information" stamped with the official seal of the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce (printed on July 12, 2013) did not match the registration situation of the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce. Aoguangtong Company filed a lawsuit against the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce in court, requesting the revocation of the bureau's notice of refusal to file a case, ordering the bureau to investigate and deal with the illegal facts of Yao and Wang forging business licenses, engraving official seals, and engaging in illegal business operations in accordance with the law, and revoking the "Private Enterprise Registration Information Query Results" illegally issued by the bureau on July 12, 2013. During the litigation period, the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce revoked the aforementioned notice of non filing.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance of the People's Court of Jimo City held that the focus of controversy in this case is whether investigating and punishing the act of forging the business license of the enterprise legal person is the legal responsibility of the defendant city's Industrial and Commercial Bureau. According to the relevant provisions of the Regulations on the Administration of Company Registration and its implementation rules, the industrial and commercial authorities have the legal responsibility to investigate and punish acts such as forging, altering, renting, and transferring business licenses. After receiving the report, the defendant shall file the case, conduct investigation and evidence collection, and make corresponding measures based on the investigation results. The court does not support the plaintiff's application for revocation of the "Private Enterprise Registration Information Query Result", as the existing evidence cannot prove that the query result was issued by the defendant and is not a specific administrative act. Given that during the trial of this case, the defendant voluntarily revoked the notice of non filing. Thus, it was ruled that the defendant's notice of not filing the case was illegal, and the plaintiff's request to revoke the "Private Enterprise Registration Information Query Results" was rejected. After the company appealed, the Qingdao Intermediate People's Court ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case where the industrial and commercial authorities failed to fulfill their duty of investigating and punishing illegal activities that disrupt the market in accordance with the law. A business license is a business certificate issued by the administrative authority for industry and commerce on behalf of the state to enterprises engaged in business activities in accordance with the law, and is a proof document that an enterprise has obtained business qualifications. It plays a very important role in clarifying the market position of enterprises and stabilizing market relations with enterprises as the core. The laws and regulations related to company registration clearly stipulate that the act of forging a business license is illegal and should be punished accordingly. In reality, there are many drilling operators who engage in illegal activities by forging business licenses and other means, disrupting the order of social and economic management. In this case, the court further clarified in the form of a judgment that the industrial and commercial authorities have the responsibility to investigate and punish such behavior, and should bear the consequences of losing the case in case of negligence or ineffective investigation. The judgment in the case has a positive social guiding role.

9、 Fujian Xinxin Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. v. Pinghe County Administration for Industry and Commerce Administrative Penalty Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

When Fujian Xinxin Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xinxin Company) sells a certain project of commercial housing developed by it, in addition to signing a demonstration text of the commercial housing sales contract with the buyer, it also supplements the agreement that "the water and electricity account fees and measuring instruments shall be borne by the buyer" as an effective component of the contract. When the company entrusted the property management company to deliver the house, they did not pay the local water and power supply companies for the installation of water and electricity, nor did they install water and electricity measuring instruments for the purchased commodity house. As a result, buyers of Phase I and Phase II commodity houses paid for the installation materials and electricity installation materials themselves before water and electricity were connected to the house; The company handles the water and telegraph installation procedures for the third phase commercial housing uniformly, and charges the buyer for water installation materials and electricity installation materials. Buyers of the above three phases of commercial housing have paid a total of 421480 yuan in the above-mentioned fees. In September 2013, the Pinghe County Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the County Administration for Industry and Commerce), based on consumer complaints, made an administrative penalty decision in accordance with the law: ordering Xinxin Company to make corrections and bear the water installation material fees and electricity installation material fees paid by homebuyers in addition to their housing prices in accordance with regulations; A fine of RMB 1.47518 million was imposed on the company. The new company is not satisfied and after applying for reconsideration, the reconsideration authority maintains the above punishment decision. The company filed a lawsuit to the court requesting the revocation of the above penalty decision by the County Administration for Industry and Commerce.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Pinghe County, Fujian Province, in its first instance, held that the Measures for the Implementation of the Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People's Republic of China in Fujian Province stipulate that the standard terms used by operators to provide goods or services to consumers shall not "exempt or partially exempt operators from their contractual obligations". In this case, when the plaintiff Xinxin Company signed a commercial housing sales contract with the buyer, an attachment and supplementary agreement were added, which stipulated that "the water and electricity account fees and measuring instruments shall be borne by the buyer", Not in line with the regulations of the Ministry of Construction's "Measures for the Administration of Commercial Housing Sales", "Acceptance Standards for Housing Takeover", and "Notice of the General Office of the Fujian Provincial People's Government on Further Improving the Standardization of the Housing Supply System and Promoting the Sustainable and Healthy Development of the Real Estate Market", etc., the cost of water and electricity construction and installation that should be borne by oneself in accordance with the law is transferred to the homebuyer in the form of standard terms, It is illegal to increase the additional burden on homebuyers. The defendant's county industrial and commercial bureau has determined that the facts are clear and the punishment procedure is legal. The original lawsuit request was rejected in the judgment. After the appeal of Xinxin Company, the Intermediate People's Court of Zhangzhou City ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case involving consumer rights protection. In economic life, in areas closely related to the lives of the people, such as water, electricity, heating supply, transportation, financial lending, and housing sales and leasing, a large number of standard terms often appear in contracts. When a business operator provides goods or services to consumers, they may use standard terms, but standard terms shall not contain any content that illegally exempt the business operator from liability, aggravate consumer liability, or exclude the main rights of consumers. Although the contract signed between the operator and the consumer belongs to a civil legal relationship, if the standard terms clearly infringe on the rights and interests of consumers, the industrial and commercial authorities have the right to fulfill their investigation and punishment responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, Administrative Penalty Law, etc. The administrative trial of the people's court should provide strong support for this. In this case, the People's Court affirmed the correct measures taken by the industrial and commercial authorities to lawfully investigate and punish the use of standard clauses by new and new companies to increase the burden of water and electricity construction and installation costs on homebuyers, effectively protecting the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, and maintaining a healthy and orderly market economic order.

10、 Zhou Ketian, Wei Dazhi, Chen Fengjiao, He Xiangzeng v. China Securities Regulatory Commission Administrative Penalty Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Since 1993, Bao'an Hongji Real Estate Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hongji Company) has been holding stocks such as "Wanneng Power", "Ewushang A", and "Kunbaida A" through other companies. In March 2007, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange issued a "Regulatory Attention Letter", requesting the board of directors of Hongji Company to verify and respond to matters related to stock price fluctuations. At the same time, in response to media reports on the astonishing investment returns of the company's corporate stocks, the company was required to publish a "Clarification Announcement" and clearly explain the relevant situation. When the Secretary of the Board of Directors of Hongji Company checked the company's previous annual reports, he found that the number of corporate shares disclosed in the company's annual report was less than the number of shares held by the company mentioned in other listed companies' share reform announcements. He immediately reported the relevant situation to the Chairman. On March 19, 2007, Hongji Company issued a "Clarification Announcement", stating that the company holds stocks such as "Wanneng Electric Power", "Ewushang A", and "Kunbaida A" on behalf of other companies. Other companies are the actual owners of the aforementioned stocks, and the shares held on behalf of the company do not belong to the company's assets. When releasing its annual reports for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, Hung Kai Company had issues such as not including the earnings from the aforementioned three types of stocks in its financial statements, and not disclosing the false sale and transfer of corporate shares held by the aforementioned stocks. When the board of directors of the company reviewed the annual reports for 2006, 2007, and 2008, the attending directors Zhou Ketian, Wei Dazhi, Chen Fengjiao, and He Xiangzeng did not raise any objections to the issue of corporate shares; During the review of the 2009 annual report, the attending directors Chen Fengjiao and He Xiangzeng did not raise any objections to the issue of corporate shares. On March 19, 2011, Hung Kai Company released its 2010 annual report, which disclosed the investigation and fund collection of "proxy holdings". According to the special audit report, the company held the above-mentioned three stocks on behalf of other companies, and the equity belongs to the company. The China Securities Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the China Securities Regulatory Commission) conducted an investigation into Hung Kai Company in November 2010 and made an administrative penalty decision in December 2012: it was determined that Hung Kai Company did not truthfully disclose its "proxy shareholding" issue in its "Clarification Announcement" on March 19, 2007 and its annual reports from 2006 to 2009. In accordance with relevant provisions of the Securities Law, while punishing the listed company and its chairman and other responsible personnel, It has been decided to issue warnings to Zhou Ketian, Wei Dazhi, Chen Fengjiao, and He Xiangzeng, and impose a fine of 30000 yuan each. The four people appealed to the court and requested a judgment to revoke their punishment.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance of the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court held that Zhou Ketian and four other plaintiffs acknowledged that Hongji Company did not truthfully disclose the issue of "proxy shareholding" in its annual reports from 2006 to 2009. According to the relevant provisions of the Securities Law, directors, supervisors, and senior management personnel of listed companies shall ensure that the information disclosed by the listed company is true, accurate, and complete. The four plaintiffs, as independent directors of Hongji Company, should be diligent and responsible, and implement necessary and effective supervision. The evidence in the case can prove that the four individuals did not raise objections to the above issues during the review of the relevant annual report. And on March 15, 2007, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange issued a "Regulatory Attention Letter" to Hongji Company, requesting the company to publish a clarification notice and clearly explain the continuous abnormal fluctuations of the company's stock. Afterwards, the four individuals did not implement necessary and effective supervision on the issue of "proxy shareholding" involved in the case. Therefore, the defendant, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, determined that they had not fulfilled their supervisory obligations and were not diligent and responsible, and should be held responsible for the illegal disclosure of information by Hongji Company, without any improper behavior. Thus, the judgment rejected all the claims of the four plaintiffs. After Zhou Ketian and four others appealed, the Beijing Higher People's Court ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case involving securities market regulation. The importance of the securities market in economic activities is increasingly prominent. In response to the continuous occurrence of illegal information disclosure, insider trading, market manipulation and other illegal behaviors in practice, securities regulatory agencies need to continuously increase their investigation and punishment efforts to promote the stability and healthy development of the securities market, and the resulting administrative disputes will also increase. Information disclosure directly involves stock market prices and the protection of shareholders' right to know, which is the core field of securities regulation. The directors, supervisors, and senior management personnel of a listed company bear legal responsibility for the authenticity, accuracy, and completeness of the disclosed information, and may not act recklessly, neglect their responsibilities, or even intentionally participate in, plan, or fabricate in their positions. In this case, the China Securities Regulatory Commission punished Hung Kai Company and its related personnel for their responsibilities in the process of not truthfully disclosing information, distinguishing different situations. Four independent directors, including Zhou Ketian, were punished as "other directly responsible persons" under the Securities Law for failing to provide evidence of their loyalty and diligence obligations. The punishment was based on legal evidence, and the people's court provided full support, The judgment in this case provides a clear sense of responsibility for independent directors and other executives of listed companies, and serves as a warning and reference for them to fulfill their duties diligently. It has positive significance for safeguarding the interests of investors.