>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Guiding Case No.5: Suzhou Branch of Luwei (Fujian) Salt Import and Export Co., Ltd. v. Salt Administration of Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province (salt industry administrative penalty case)
指导案例5号:鲁潍(福建)盐业进出口有限公司苏州分公司诉江苏省苏州市盐务管理局盐业行政处罚案
【法宝引证码】

Suzhou Branch of Luwei (Fujian) Salt Import and Export Co., Ltd. v. Salt Administration of Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province
(salt industry administrative penalty case)@#
(Issued upon deliberation and adoption by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on April 9, 2012)@#
Guiding Case No. 5@#
Keywords:@#
administration; administrative licenses; administrative penalties; reference to rules; salt industry administration@#
Judgment's Key Holdings@#
 鲁潍(福建)盐业进出口有限公司苏州分公司诉江苏省苏州市盐务管理局盐业行政处罚案 @#
(最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2012年4月9日发布)
@#
指导案例5号@#
关键词@#
行政 行政许可 行政处罚 规章参照 盐业管理@#
裁判要点@#
1. Where an administrative license regarding permits for transportation of industrial salt is not provided for in laws and administrative regulations on the administration of the salt industry, new administrative licenses regarding permits for transportation of industrial salt may not be provided for in local regulations or local government rules.@#
 1.盐业管理的法律、行政法规没有设定工业盐准运证的行政许可,地方性法规或者地方政府规章不能设定工业盐准运证这一新的行政许可。@#
2. Where an administrative penalty is not provided for in laws and administrative regulations on the administration of the salt industry with respect to the salt wholesale business of other enterprises that are not salt industry companies, an administrative penalty may not be provided for in local government rules for such business.@#
 2.盐业管理的法律、行政法规对盐业公司之外的其他企业经营盐的批发业务没有设定行政处罚,地方政府规章不能对该行为设定行政处罚。@#
3. Where a local government rule provides for an administrative license or administrative penalty in violation of laws and regulations, such local government rule shall not be applied in an administrative trial by the people's court.@#
Relevant Legal Provisions@#
 3.地方政府规章违反法律规定设定许可、处罚的,人民法院在行政审判中不予适用。@#
相关法条@#
1. Paragraph 1 of Article 15 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 16 of the Administrative License Law of the People's Republic of China;@#
 1.《中华人民共和国行政许可法》第十五条第一款、第十六条第二款、第三款@#
2. Article 13 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Administrative Penalty;@#
 2.《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》第十三条@#
3. Paragraph 1 of Article 53 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China; and@#
 3.《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第五十三条第一款@#
4. Article 79 of the Law on Legislation of the People's Republic of China.@#
Basic Facts@#
Plaintiff, Suzhou Branch of Luwei (Fujian) Salt Import and Export Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Luwei Company”) alleged that: the specific administrative acts of the defendant, the Salt Administration of Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province (hereinafter referred to as the “Suzhou Salt Administration”) on determining that Luwei Company's purchase and transportation of industrial salt without approval is illegal by following the Measures of Jiangsu Province for Implementation of the Regulation on Salt Industry Administration (hereinafter referred to as the “Jiangsu Salt Industry Implementation Measures”) and on making a decision on an administrative penalty against Luwei Company were in error in respect of the administrative law enforcement organ and the application of law. The Suzhou Salt Administration had neither the function of administering industrial salt nor the corresponding power to enforce the law. In accordance with the Notice of the former State Planning Commission and the former State Economic and Trade Commission on Improving the Measures for the Supply, Marketing and Price Management of Industrial Salt, the system of permits and seals for the transportation of industrial salt was abolished by the state and, furthermore, industrial salt is no longer considered a commodity restricted from trading by the state. Being inconsistent with the spirit of the preceding provisions, the relevant provisions in the Jiangsu Salt Industry Implementation Measures violated not only the Provisions of the State Council on Prohibiting Regional Blockades in Market Economic Activities, but also the Administrative License Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Administrative License Law”) and the Law of the People's Republic of China on Administrative Penalty (hereinafter referred to as the “Law on Administrative Penalty”). The acts of the Suzhou Salt Administration on determining the administrative license and administrative penalty violated the superordinate laws. Hence, Luwei Company requested that the court overrule the Administrative Penalty Decision (No. 001-B [2009] of Salt Administration, Suzhou) made by the Suzhou Salt Administration.@#
Defendant, the Suzhou Salt Administration, contended that: In accordance with Article 4 of the Regulation of the State Council on Salt Industry Administration and Article 4 of the Jiangsu Salt Industry Implementation Measures, the Suzhou Salt Administration had the corresponding function of making decisions on administrative penalties regarding salt affairs. The Jiangsu Salt Industry Implementation Measures were formulated under the authorization of the Regulation on Salt Industry Administration, were formulated under the authority of this Regulation, and therefore, are legitimate and valid as a whole. Hence, it was not improper for the Suzhou Salt Administration to make a decision on administrative penalty according to the provisions of the Jiangsu Salt Industry Implementation Measures on establishing a system of transportation permits. Both the Administrative License Law and the Law on Administrative Penalty took effect after the Jiangsu Salt Industry Implementation Measures entered into force. Under the principle of the non-retroactivity of law as provided for in the Law on Legislation of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Legislation Law”), the Jiangsu Salt Industry Implementation Measures should still apply. Luwei Company's act of purchasing industrial salt without the approval of Jiangsu Salt Industry Group or the approval of the administrative authority for the salt industry violated the relevant provisions of the Regulation on Salt Industry Administration. In the penalty decision made by the Suzhou Salt Administration, the findings of fact were clear, the evidence was conclusive, the application of regulations and regulatory documents was accurate, and the procedure was lawful. Hence, the Suzhou Salt Administration requested that the court reject the claim of Luwei Company.@#
At trial, the court found that: On November 12, 2007, Luwei Company purchased 360 tons of industrial salt from Jiangxi Province and other places. The Suzhou Salt Administration maintained that when Luwei Company purchased and transported industrial salt, it should have acquired a permit for the transportation of industrial salt in accordance with the Jiangsu Salt Industry Implementation Measures and that Luwei Company's purchase of industrial salt outside of Jiangsu Province without a permit for transportation of industrial salt was a suspected violation of law. On February 26, 2009, after a hearing and collective discussion, the Suzhou Salt Administration held that Luwei Company's act of purchasing salt products from outside Jiangsu Province without an allocation by Jiangsu Salt Industry Group or without the approval of the administrative authority for the salt industry violated the provisions of Article 20 of the Regulation on Salt Industry Administration, and Article 23 and item (2) of Article 32 of the Jiangsu Salt Industry Implementation Measures. In accordance with Article 42 of the Jiangsu Salt Industry Implementation Measures, the Suzhou Salt Administration issued a written Administration Penalty Decision (No. 001-B [2009] of Salt Administration, Suzhou) against Luwei Company, deciding to confiscate 121.7 tons of refined industrial salt and 93.1 tons of powder salt illegally purchased by Luwei Company, and imposed a fine of 122,363 yuan upon Luwei Company. On February 27, Luwei Company filed an application for administrative reconsideration with the People's Government of Suzhou City against the above-mentioned written Decision. On April 24, the People's Government of Suzhou City issued a written Reconsideration Decision (Administrative Reconsideration No. 8 [2009] of the People's Government of Suzhou), which sustained the penalty decision made by the Suzhou Salt Administration.@#
Judgment@#
On April 29, 2011, the Jinchang District People's Court of Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province issued an Administrative (No. 0027 [2009], First, Administrative Division, People's Court, Jinchang), in which the written Administrative Penalty Decision (No. 001-B [2009] of Salt Administration, Suzhou) made by the Suzhou Salt Administration was overruled.@#
Judgment's Reasoning@#
In the in effect, the court held that: The Suzhou Salt Administration is the salt administrative authority under the People's Government of Suzhou City. In accordance with Article 4 of the Regulation on Salt Industry Administration and Articles 4 and 6 of the Jiangsu Salt Industry Implementation Measures, the Suzhou Salt Administration has the power to administer business operations regarding salt (including industrial salt) within the region of Suzhou City, and it is a competent and legitimate administrative law enforcement organ.@#
When the Suzhou Salt Administration investigates and handles cases relating to salt, legitimate and valid laws and regulations should apply. Article 79 of the Law on Legislation provides that “the effect of a law shall be higher than that of an administrative regulation, local regulation or rule; and the effect of an administrative regulation shall be higher than that of a local regulation or rule.” The specific administrative acts of the Suzhou Salt Administration involved both an administrative license and an administrative penalty, which therefore should be implemented in compliance with the Administrative License Law and the Law on Administrative Penalty. Non-retroactivity of law means that the provisions of a law can only be applied to an event or act that occurred after the law enters into force and that such provisions do not apply to an event or act that occurred before the law enters into force. Paragraph 2 of Article 83 of the Administrative License Law prescribes that “in accordance with this Law, legislative organs shall inventory and review the relevant provisions on administrative license prior to the implementation of this Law; those inconsistent with this Law shall be abolished from the day when this Law comes into force.” Paragraph 2 of Article 64 of the Law on Administrative Penalty prescribes that “the provisions regarding administrative penalty in the regulations and rules enacted before the promulgation of this Law that do not comply with the provisions of this Law shall be amended in accordance with the provisions of this Law from the date of promulgation of this Law, and such amendment shall be finished before December 31, 1997.” Thus, the grounds of defense of the Suzhou Salt Administration regarding the non-retroactivity of law are untenable. Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 15 and paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Administrative License Law, under the circumstance that laws or administrative regulations have already been formulated, local government rules can only make specific provisions on the implementation of an administrative license within the scope of the matters of the administrative license established by laws and administrative regulations and no new administrative license may be established. No law provides for an administrative license for a permit for the transportation of industrial salt, nor does the Regulation on Salt Industry Administration, hence, a local government rule cannot establish a system of transportation permits for industrial salt. In accordance with Article 13 of the Law on Administrative Penalty, under the circumstance that administrative regulations have already been formulated, local government rules can only make specific provisions within the scope of the acts subject to administrative penalty and the types and range of such penalty established by administrative regulations. The Regulation on Salt Industry Administration does not provide for any administrative penalty against the salt wholesale business of other enterprises that are not salt industry companies, hence, local government rules cannot establish an administrative penalty against such business act.@#
The people's court shall hear administrative cases in accordance with laws, administrative regulations and local regulations and with reference to rules. When the Suzhou Salt Administration, in accordance with its powers, made a decision on an administrative penalty against Luwei Company, even though the Jiangsu Salt Industry Implementation Measures were applicable, it did not observe the provisions of Article 79 of the Law on Legislation on the hierarchy of laws and the relevant provisions of the Administrative License Law and the Law on Administrative Penalty. Hence, the application of law was in error and the administrative penalty should be overruled in accordance with law.@#
fnl_831060
 4. 《中华人民共和国立法法》第七十九条@#
基本案情@#
原告鲁潍(福建)盐业进出口有限公司苏州分公司(简称鲁潍公司)诉称:被告江苏省苏州市盐务管理局(简称苏州盐务局)根据《江苏省〈盐业管理条例〉实施办法》(简称《江苏盐业实施办法》)的规定,认定鲁潍公司未经批准购买、运输工业盐违法,并对鲁潍公司作出行政处罚,其具体行政行为执法主体错误、适用法律错误。苏州盐务局无权管理工业盐,也无相应执法权。根据原国家计委、原国家经贸委《关于改进工业盐供销和价格管理办法的通知》等规定,国家取消了工业盐准运证和准运章制度,工业盐也不属于国家限制买卖的物品。《江苏盐业实施办法》的相关规定与上述规定精神不符,不仅违反了国务院《关于禁止在市场经济活动中实行地区封锁的规定》,而且违反了《中华人民共和国行政许可法》(简称《行政许可法》)和《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》(简称《行政处罚法》)的规定,属于违反上位法设定行政许可和处罚,故请求法院判决撤销苏州盐务局作出的(苏)盐政一般[2009]第001-B号处罚决定。@#
被告苏州盐务局辩称:根据国务院《盐业管理条例》第四条《江苏盐业实施办法》四条的规定,苏州盐务局有作出盐务行政处罚的相应职权。《江苏盐业实施办法》是根据《盐业管理条例》的授权制定的,属于法规授权制定,整体合法有效。苏州盐务局根据《江苏盐业实施办法》设立准运证制度的规定作出行政处罚并无不当。《行政许可法》《行政处罚法》均在《江苏盐业实施办法》之后实施,根据《中华人民共和国立法法》(简称《立法法》)法不溯及既往的规定,《江苏盐业实施办法》仍然应当适用。鲁潍公司未经省盐业公司或盐业行政主管部门批准而购买工业盐的行为,违反了《盐业管理条例》的相关规定,苏州盐务局作出的处罚决定,认定事实清楚,证据确凿,适用法规、规范性文件正确,程序合法,请求法院驳回鲁潍公司的诉讼请求。@#
法院经审理查明:2007年11月12日,鲁潍公司从江西等地购进360吨工业盐。苏州盐务局认为鲁潍公司进行工业盐购销和运输时,应当按照《江苏盐业实施办法》的规定办理工业盐准运证,鲁潍公司未办理工业盐准运证即从省外购进工业盐涉嫌违法。2009年2月26日,苏州盐务局经听证、集体讨论后认为,鲁潍公司未经江苏省盐业公司调拨或盐业行政主管部门批准从省外购进盐产品的行为,违反了《盐业管理条例》第二十条《江苏盐业实施办法》二十三条、第三十二条第(二)项的规定,并根据《江苏盐业实施办法》四十二条的规定,对鲁潍公司作出了(苏)盐政一般[2009]第001-B号处罚决定书,决定没收鲁潍公司违法购进的精制工业盐121.7吨、粉盐93.1吨,并处罚款122363元。鲁潍公司不服该决定,于2月27日向苏州市人民政府申请行政复议。苏州市人民政府于4月24日作出了[2009]苏行复第8号复议决定书,维持了苏州盐务局作出的处罚决定。@#
裁判结果@#
江苏省苏州市金阊区人民法院于2011年4月29日以(2009)金行初字第0027号行政判决书,判决撤销苏州盐务局(苏)盐政一般[2009]第001-B号处罚决定书。@#
裁判理由@#
法院生效裁判认为:苏州盐务局系苏州市人民政府盐业行政主管部门,根据《盐业管理条例》第四条《江苏盐业实施办法》四条、第六条的规定,有权对苏州市范围内包括工业盐在内的盐业经营活动进行行政管理,具有合法执法主体资格。@#
苏州盐务局对盐业违法案件进行查处时,应适用合法有效的法律规范。《立法法》七十九条规定,法律的效力高于行政法规、地方性法规、规章;行政法规的效力高于地方性法规、规章。苏州盐务局的具体行政行为涉及行政许可、行政处罚,应依照《行政许可法》《行政处罚法》的规定实施。法不溯及既往是指法律的规定仅适用于法律生效以后的事件和行为,对于法律生效以前的事件和行为不适用。《行政许可法》八十三条第二款规定,本法施行前有关行政许可的规定,制定机关应当依照本法规定予以清理;不符合本法规定的,自本法施行之日起停止执行。《行政处罚法》六十四条第二款规定,本法公布前制定的法规和规章关于行政处罚的规定与本法不符合的,应当自本法公布之日起,依照本法规定予以修订,在1997年12月31日前修订完毕。因此,苏州盐务局有关法不溯及既往的抗辩理由不成立。根据《行政许可法》十五条第一款、第十六条第三款的规定,在已经制定法律、行政法规的情况下,地方政府规章只能在法律、行政法规设定的行政许可事项范围内对实施该行政许可作出具体规定,不能设定新的行政许可。法律及《盐业管理条例》没有设定工业盐准运证这一行政许可,地方政府规章不能设定工业盐准运证制度。根据《行政处罚法》十三条的规定,在已经制定行政法规的情况下,地方政府规章只能在行政法规规定的给予行政处罚的行为、种类和幅度内作出具体规定,《盐业管理条例》对盐业公司之外的其他企业经营盐的批发业务没有设定行政处罚,地方政府规章不能对该行为设定行政处罚。@#
人民法院审理行政案件,依据法律、行政法规、地方性法规,参照规章。苏州盐务局在依职权对鲁潍公司作出行政处罚时,虽然适用了《江苏盐业实施办法》,但是未遵循《立法法》七十九条关于法律效力等级的规定,未依照《行政许可法》《行政处罚法》的相关规定,属于适用法律错误,依法应予撤销。@#
     
     
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