>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Paktanle Company v. Xiamen Customs (Dispute over Administrative Penalty Decision)
博坦公司诉厦门海关行政处罚决定纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Paktanle Company v. Xiamen Customs (Dispute over Administrative Penalty Decision)
(Dispute over Administrative Penalty Decision)
博坦公司诉厦门海关行政处罚决定纠纷案

Paktanle Company v. Xiamen Customs
(Dispute over Administrative Penalty Decision)@#
@#
@#
@#
@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Fujian Xiamen Paktanle Co., Ltd., domiciled at Songyu, Haicang District, Xiamen City.@#
Legal Representative: Chen Hehua, board chairman of the company.@#
Defendant: Xiamen Customs of the People's Republic of China, domiciled at Haihou Road, Xiamen City.@#
Legal Representative: Zhou Zhuowei, Commissioner of the Customs.@#
Xiamen Paktanle Co., Ltd. (the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as Paktanle Company) was dissatisfied with the administrative penalty decision made by Xiamen Customs of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as Xiamen Customs), and brought an administrative lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Xiamen Municipality, Fujian Province (hereinafter referred to as Xiamen Intermediate Court).@#
Paktanle Company alleged: On October 27, 2004, Xiamen Customs decided to confiscate Paktanle Company's CNY 44,978,766 of illegal proceeds and to impose a fine of CNY 10 million by No. 05-028 (2002) administrative penalty decision (hereinafter referred to as No. 028 administrative penalty decision) in accordance with Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the “Detailed Rules for the Implementation of Administrative Penalties under the Customs Law of the People's Republic of China” (hereinafter referred to as the “Detailed Rules on Customs Administrative Penalties”) on the ground that Paktanle Company obviously knew that the goods were imported by smuggling but still provided unloading and warehousing services therefor. Firstly, regarding the incomplete procedures for import of the oil, Paktanle Company sent a letter to Xiamen Petroleum Company, and also reported to Xiamen Customs. Xiamen Customs' functionary had also dealt with the matter and approved the release of the oil. Meanwhile, Xiamen Petroleum Company also said they would take charge of making up the customs procedures and bear the liabilities. Secondly, the “Detailed Rules on Customs Administrative Penalties” were formulated for the implementation of the “Customs Law of the People's Republic of China” (hereinafter referred to as the Customs Law) promulgated and coming into force in 1987. When Xiamen Customs handled the present case, the new Customs Law had been promulgated and come into force, and thus the old Customs Law and relevant detailed rules should no longer apply. When Xiamen Customs made the administrative penalty decision according to the old detailed rules, the application of laws was obviously wrong. Thirdly, Paktanle Company gained a total of USD 5,797,142.97 of operational revenue from the business, which could be converted into CNY 47,985,271; after deduction of CNY 26,809,123 of workers' wages, warehousing equipment depreciation and other necessary expenditures, as well as CNY 3,006,505 of taxes paid to the state, Paktanle Company's income was merely CNY 18,169,643. Xiamen Customs only deducted the taxes from the operational revenue, but counted all other business operational expenditures as illegal proceeds, which was a wrong ascertainment of the composition and amount of the “illegal proceeds”. Fourthly, Xiamen Customs confiscated the operational revenue after deduction of taxes by regarding them as illegal proceeds, and meanwhile gave a fine of CNY 10 million, and thus the penalty was obviously unjust. Paktanle Company pleaded the court to: 1. overrule No. 028 administrative penalty decision made by Xiamen Customs, and order Xiamen Customs to make a new specific administrative act within a time limit, or directly modify Xiamen Customs' administrative penalty decision; and 2. order Xiamen Customs to bear the litigation costs for the present case.@#
Paktanle Company submitted the No. 028 administrative penalty decision, No. 0037 (2004) decision of administrative reconsideration of the People's Republic of China the General Administration of Customs (hereinafter referred to as the General Administration of Customs) and a receipt, which prove the existence of the specific administrative act sued, and that Paktanle Company brought the administrative lawsuit within the statutory time limit; it also submitted Paktanle Company's 1997 and 1998 audit reports, 1997 and 1998 tax returns, table on the expenditures for unloading and warehousing 64 voyages of goods, and statement on calculation of revenues, which prove that Paktanle Company's total amount of operational revenue contained the business operational expenditures and the paid taxes.@#
Xiamen Customs argued: 1. With regard to the issue of Xiamen Petroleum Company's failing to go through the procedures for making up declaration to the customs for the imported oil, although Paktanle Company reported the fact to a functionary of Xiamen Customs at the beginning, and the functionary of Xiamen Customs also orally replied that the procedures could be made up after the goods were released, Xiamen Customs clearly said the circumstance should no longer be repeated, and the future goods should not be unloaded or warehoused without the consent of the customs. 2. Paktanle Company is a large enterprise specially engaged in oil warehousing, and should be obligated to examine the lawful sources of the imported oil. However, despite that Paktanle Company clearly knew that no procedures for declaration to the customs or those for tax payment were fulfilled within the territory of China for the oil it unloaded and warehoused, and despite that the oil was goods imported through smuggling, it still unloaded and warehoused the oil, for the sole purpose of seeking benefits. Xiamen Customs decided to give an administrative penalty upon Paktanle Company in accordance with Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the “Detailed Rules on Customs Administrative Penalties”. In the decision, the law was correctly applied, and the penalty was suitable. 3. On July 8, 2000, the “Decision on Amending the Customs Law of the People's Republic of China” adopted at the Sixteenth Session of the Standing Committee of the Ninth National People's Congress only amended the 1987 Customs Law, but did not repeal the Law. Although the “Detailed Rules on Customs Administrative Penalties” were formulated in accordance with the 1987 Customs Law, they were not announced by the formulating organ for repeal when Xiamen Customs handled the present case; and once they were not in conflict with the 2000 Customs Law, they shall continue to be effective. 4. Concealing the truth and facilitating the smuggler are illegal acts which shall not be protected by law. Paktanle Company should of course pay certain costs i.e., the business operational expenses as alleged by Paktanle Company, in order to commit the illegal acts, while such costs shall not be protected by law, but be borne by the law-breaker itself according to the principle of lying on the bed made by itself. If the offender's illegal costs are protected, it will be the same as conniving the offender to commit illegal acts. Therefore, it was correct for Xiamen Customs to count Paktanle Company's other income as illegal proceeds and to confiscate them after deducting the taxes paid by Paktanle Company to the state. Paktanle Company's claim for deduction of the illegal costs it had contributed was short of legal basis, and should not be supported. The administrative penalty decision made by Xiamen Customs was correct, and should be sustained by the present court.@#
......

 

博坦公司诉厦门海关行政处罚决定纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
一、对海关监管货物的来源负有审查义务的仓储企业法人,明知他人走私货物,虽然一再向走私人表示拒绝为走私货物提供仓储服务,但事实上一直为走私货物提供仓储服务并不向海关报告,其行为违反《中华人民共和国海关法行政处罚实施细则》第六条第二款规定,构成共同走私。@#
二、行政机关为实施法律而根据法律制定的实施细则、条例等行政法规,在相关法律修改后,只要没有被法律、行政法规或者制定机关明令废止,并且不与修改后的法律相抵触,就仍然可以适用。@#
三、对知情不报并为走私人提供方便的人给予没收违法所得并处罚款的行政处罚,符合《中华人民共和国海关法行政处罚实施细则》第六条第二款的规定。被处罚人以其他文件的规定为例,要求从违法所得中扣除其投入的费用,理由不能成立。@#
@#
原告:福建省厦门博坦仓储有限公司,住所地:厦门市海沧嵩屿。@#
法定代表人:陈和华,该公司董事长。@#
被告:中华人民共和国厦门海关,住所地:厦门市海后路。@#
法定代表人:周卓为,该海关关长。@#
原告厦门博坦仓储有限公司(以下简称博坦公司)因不服被告中华人民共和国厦门海关(以下简称厦门海关)对其作出的行政处罚决定,向福建省厦门市中级人民法院提起行政诉讼。@#
原告诉称:2004年10月27日,被告厦门海关以明知货物走私进口仍提供卸储服务为由,根据《中华人民共和国海关法行政处罚实施细则》(以下简称《海关行政处罚细则》)第六条第二款规定,对原告作出 (2002)厦关查罚字第05-028号行政处罚决定(以下简称028号行政处罚决定),决定没收违法所得人民币44 978 766元(以下未特殊注明的金额均为人民币),并处罚款1000万元。首先,为这些油料的进口手续不全,原告曾致函厦门石油总公司,也向被告反映过,被告的工作人员曾为此进行过协调,同意放行这些油料,厦门石油总公司也表示由他们负责补办海关手续,责任由他们承担。其次,《海关行政处罚细则》是为1987年颁布施行的《中华人民共和国海关法》(以下简称海关法)而制定实施的。被告处理本案时,新海关法已经颁布实施,旧海关法及相关细则不再适用。被告适用旧的细则作出行政处罚决定,适用法律明显错误。再次,原告从这些业务中共获取营业收入5 797 142.97美元,折合人民币 47 985 271元;扣除劳动者工资、仓储设备折旧提成以及其他必要支出26 809 123元,扣除给国家上缴的税款3 006 505元,原告的所得仅为18 169 643元。被告仅从营业收入中扣除税款,却把其他支出的经营费用都计算为违法所得,对“违法所得”的构成与数额认定错误。第四,被告既把扣除税款后的营业收入都作为违法所得没收,同时又处以1000万元的罚款,处罚显失公正。请求:一、撤销被告作出的028号行政处罚决定,限期被告重新作出具体行政行为,或者判决变更被告作出的行政处罚决定;二、判令被告负担本案诉讼费用。@#
原告博坦公司提交028号行政处罚决定、中华人民共和国海关总署(以下简称海关总署)的(2004)0037号行政复议决定书以及收件单,用以证明被诉的具体行政行为存在,以及博坦公司在法定期限内提起行政诉讼;提交博坦公司1997年度和 1998年度审计报告、1997年度和1998年度纳税申报表、卸储64艘次货物支出费用一览表、收入计算说明,用以证明博坦公司营业收入总额中包括了经营费用支出及缴纳的税款。@#
被告辩称:一、关于厦门石油总公司进口油料不办理报关手续的问题,在开始时原告虽然向被告的工作人员反映过,被告的工作人员也曾口头答复可以先放行后补办手续,但也明确表示下不为例,以后的货要海关同意才可以卸储。二、原告是专门从事油料仓储的大型企业,有义务审查进口油料的合法来源。原告明知其卸载和仓储的油料均未在中国境内办理报关纳税手续,是走私进口货物,仍进行卸载和仓储,从中谋取利益。被告根据《海关行政处罚细则》六条第二款的规定,决定对原告进行行政处罚,适用法律正确,处罚适当。三、 2000年7月8日,第九届全国人大常委会第十六次会议通过的《关于修改<中华人民共和国海关法>的决定》,仅是对1987年海关法进行修改,并未废除该法。《海关行政处罚细则》虽然是根据1987年海关法制定的,但至被告处理本案时,尚未被制定机关宣布废止;只要其不与2000年海关法相抵触,就应当继续有效。四、知情不报并为走私人提供方便的行为是违法行为,违法行为不应受到法律保护。原告为实施违法行为,当然得投入一定成本,即原告所称的经营费用,但这种成本不应得到法律保护,只能根据咎由自取的原则令违法人自行负担。如果对行为人投入的违法成本也给予保护,无异于纵容行为人实施违法行为。因此,被告在扣除了原告上缴给国家的税款后,将原告的其他收入计算为违法所得予以没收,是正确的。原告要求从中扣除其投入的违法成本,没有法律依据,不应支持。被告作出的行政处罚决定是正确的,法院应当维持。@#
被告厦门海关提交以下证据:@#
1.企业法人营业执照,用以证明博坦公司具有经营油品仓储业务的资质;@#
2.博坦公司与厦门石油总公司的来往函电,用以证明博坦公司明知油料是未办理报关手续的走私进口货物仍卸载和仓储,且未向海关报告;@#
3.博坦公司与厦门石油总公司、厦门象屿新大地进出口公司签署的柴油仓储协议,用以证明博坦公司允许涉案油料在其油库中卸储并以此收取违法所得;@#
4.进口成品油卸储情况统计表,用以证明在博坦公司所属油库卸载、仓储走私油料的船舶、运载次数和运载数量;@#
5.海关核查进口油料的证明材料,用以证明自1997年3月至1998年6月,赫斯特拉号轮等64艘次船舶运载油料入境,未向海关办理报关纳税手续;@#
6.对陈燕新、林奇志、曾鸣、吴宇波等人的询问笔录,用以证明博坦公司允许走私油料在其油库卸载和仓储,知情不报的事实;@#
7.福建省高级人民法院(2000)闽刑终字第604号、613号刑事裁定书,用以证明涉案油料是走私货物;@#
8.博坦公司与厦门石油总公司的来往账单、相关收入计算证明,用以证明博坦公司因卸载和仓储走私油料共收取违法所得 44 978 766元;@#
9.税收缴款书及清单,用以证明白 1997年5月至1998年6月间,博坦公司共向国家上缴税款3 006 504.77元:@#
10.028号行政处罚决定书及送达笔录、海关总署(2004)0037号行政复议决定书、听证通知、听证会记录、行政处罚告知单,用以证明厦门海关的行政执法程序合法;@#
11.《海关行政处罚细则》六条第二款,用以证明行政处罚行为的法律依据。@#
厦门市中级人民法院经审理查明:@#
1997年3月至1998年6月,赫斯特拉号轮等64艘次船舶将未在中国境内办理报关纳税手续的柴油1 150 156.9吨、毛豆油256 569.64吨、毛菜籽油15 568.344吨、棕油7171.22吨、精豆油30 008.01吨、精棕油5633.231吨、大豆油15 945.921吨走私入境后,在原告博坦公司所属的油库卸载、仓储,博坦公司因此收入 5 797 142.97美元,折合人民币47 985 271元,期间向国家缴纳税款3 006 505元。据此,被告厦门海关于2004年10月27日作出028号行政处罚决定,决定没收博坦公司的违法所得44 978 766元,并处罚款 1000万元。2005年2月4日,海关总署作出(2004)0037号行政复议决定书,决定驳回博坦公司的复议申请,维持厦门海关作出的028号行政处罚决定。@#
另查明:1997年3月,原告博坦公司致函厦门石油总公司.提出厦门石油总公司在博坦公司卸储的油料手续不全,不予装船,要求厦门石油总公司提供海关文件。 3月25日,厦门海关工作人员吴宇波在协调此事时,口头表示货可以先放,但要求厦门石油总公司补办海关手续,且下不为例,以后的货要海关同意才可以卸储。3月25日、4月1日,厦门石油总公司给博坦公司回函,称海关手续由其办理,责任由其承担,要求博坦公司以后按照现行方式进行作业。@#
@#
本案争议焦点是:1.将《海关行政处罚细则》六条第二款作为028号行政处罚决定适用的法律依据是否正确?2.应当如何认定博坦公司的行为?3.本案违法所得数额认定是否恰当?@#
@#
厦门市中级人民法院认为:@#
海关法是法律,《海关行政处罚细则》是行政法规。行政法规当然要服从法律,但不等于说法律修改了,根据修改前法律制定的行政法规就自然失效。法律无论是否修改,根据法律制定的行政法规中,凡是与修改前或者修改后法律相抵触的条文都是无效的,其他条文必须由法律、行政法规或者国务院的命令废止才会失去法律效力。 2000年7月8日,第九届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第十六次会议修改了海关法。2004年9月19日,国务院公布《中华人民共和国海关行政处罚实施条例》,其中第六十八条规定:“本实施条例自2004年 11月1日起施行。1993年2月17日国务院批准修订、1993年4月1日海关总署发布的《中华人民共和国海关法行政处罚实施细则》同时废止。”028号行政处罚决定于《海关行政处罚细则》未被废止之前作出,以《海关行政处罚细则》六条第二款作为法律依据,适用法律并无不当。@#
......


Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥900.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
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;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
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 as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese