>>>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
 
Shanghai Huixing Industry Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Pujiang Customs (Case on Administrative Compensation)
上海汇兴实业公司诉上海浦江海关行政赔偿案
【法宝引证码】

Shanghai Huixing Industry Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Pujiang Customs (Case on Administrative Compensation)
(Case on Administrative Compensation)
上海汇兴实业公司诉上海浦江海关行政赔偿案

Shanghai Huixing Industry Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Pujiang Customs
(Case on Administrative Compensation)

 

上海汇兴实业公司诉上海浦江海关行政赔偿案

 【裁判摘要】
 根据国家赔偿法第二十八条第(七)项规定,行政机关的违法行政行为对行政相对人的财产权造成损害的,应按照直接损失给予赔偿,但未经证实的不确定利益不能作为直接损失。
BASIC FACTS 
Plaintiff: Shanghai Huixing Industry Co., Ltd., domiciled on Huihe Road, Shanghai 原告:上海汇兴实业有限公司,住所地:上海市辉河路。
Legal Representative: Dou Xiangyang, general manager of the Industry Co., Ltd. 法定代表人:窦向阳,该公司总经理。
Defendant: Shanghai Pujiang Customs of the People's Republic of China, domiciled on Taiping Road, Shanghai 被告:中华人民共和国上海浦江海关,住所地:上海市太平路。
Legal Representative: Ma Yan, principal of the Customs 法定代表人:马衍,该海关关长。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
Shanghai Huixing Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Huixing) had a dispute over administrative compensation with Shanghai Pujiang Customs of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Customs) and therefore filed an action on administrative compensation with the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality. The No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality accepted the present case on May 6, 2003. 原告上海汇兴实业有限公司(以下简称汇兴公司)因与被告中华人民共和国上海浦江海关(以下简称浦江海关)发生行政赔偿纠纷,向上海市第二中级人民法院提起行政赔偿诉讼,上海市第二中级人民法院于2003年5月6日受理本案。
Huixing alleged that: On November 13, 2001, the Customs levied the import tariff as well as the value-added tax (VAT) on the artificial grassland as imported by Huixing. On October 22, 2002, the Customs levied, in addition, 47, 509. 34 yuan of import tariff as well as VAT on the artificial grassland sold by Huixing. The tax amount as additionally levied was incremental cost, which led to a decrease of Huixing's proceeds as generated from its sale of artificial grassland and therefore let to direct losses thereto. Huixing, hence, pleaded with the court to adjudicate that the first levy of tariff as conducted by the Customs is illegal and that the Customs shall compensate Huixing 47, 509. 34 yuan of economic losses. 原告诉称:2001年11月13日,被告对我公司进口的人工草坪征收了进口关税并代征增值税。2002年10月22日,被告又对我公司已经出售的人工草坪补征进口关税、代征增值税共计人民币47509.34。被告的补征税款属新增成本,导致我公司销售人工草坪收益减少,造成了我公司的直接损失。故请求确认被告第一次征税行为违法,并赔偿我公司47509.34元经济损失。
The evidences as provided by the plaintiff are as follows: 原告汇兴公司提供的证据有:
1. A Sales Contract as concluded between Huixing and Hangzhou Jingfang Middle School on September 20, 2001, stipulating a sales unit price of 180 yuan/square meters for grassland; 1.2001年9月20日汇兴公司与杭州市景芳中学签订的草坪销售合同书,草坪销售单价为180元/平方米。
2. An Engineering Contract on the Artificial Grassland for Football Field as concluded between Huixing and Fudan University on September 26, 2001, stipulating a sales unit price of 215 yuan/square meters for grassland; 2.2001年9月26日汇兴公司与复旦大学签订的人工草坪足球场工程合同,草坪销售单价为215元/平方米。
3. An Agreement as concluded between Huixing and Shanghai Shixian Industry & Development Co., Ltd. on September 30, 2001, stipulating a sales unit price of 102. 5641 yuan/square meters for grassland; 3.2001年9月30日汇兴公司与上海仕贤实业发展有限公司签订的协议书,草坪销售单价为102.5641元/平方米。
4. A remittance credence relating to the business operation between Huixing and Guangdong Huajin Sports Field Article Co., Ltd.; 4.2001年11月14日汇兴公司与广东华晋运动场地用品有限公司的电汇凭证。
5. An Engineering Contract on the Artificial Grassland for Sports Field as concluded on March 25, 2002 between Huixing and the Scientific and Technical Kindergarten of Yangpu District, Shanghai, stipulating a sales unit price of 150 yuan/square meters for grassland; 5.2002年3月25日汇兴公司与上海市杨浦区科技幼稚园签订的人工草坪运动场工程合同,草坪销售单价为150元/平方米。
6. An Engineering Contract on the Artificial Grassland for Sports Field as concluded in August, 2002 between Huixing and Shanghai Shenhong Construction Co., Ltd. for Zhongzhoulu Primary School and Chifenglu Primary School, stipulating a sales unit price of 140 yuan/square meters for grassland; and 6.2002年8月汇兴公司与上海申虹建筑公司签订的中州路小学、赤峰路小学人工草坪球场工程合同,草坪销售单价为140元/平方米。
7. A Construction Contract on the Artificial Grassland as concluded on September 3, 2002 between Huixing and Administrative Station of Educational Capital Construction for School Assets, Shenhong District, Shanghai Hydro-electricity Middle School and the No. 2 Middle School of Liang Cheng, Shanghai, stipulating a sales unit price of 135 yuan/square meters for grassland, as well as the relevant bank cheques and invoices. 7.2002年9月3日汇兴公司与上海市虹口区教育校产基建管理站就上海市水电中学、上海市凉城第二中学人工草坪工程签订的施工合同及银行支票、发票,草坪销售单价为135元/平方米。
The foregoing evidences are all applied in proving that the artificial grassland as imported by the plaintiff has been sold out before the relevant tax return is required to be made up; 以上证据均用以证明原告进口的人工草坪在被告要求补征税款前已经出售。
When the relevant evidences are exchanged before the hearing, the Customs confirmed that the application of law in the tax levy as conducted on November 13, 2001 was wrong and therefore, Huixing disclaimed its request for confirming the illegality of the levy. 庭前证据交换时,因被告浦江海关已确认2001年11月13日征税行为适用法律错误,原告汇兴公司撤回了要求确认其违法的诉讼请求。
The defendant argued that: Huixing entrusted another party to declare to the Customs its imported artificial grassland by wrong serial number of goods, which was then overlooked by the relevant functionary and therefore the corresponding tax return was under-collected. The requirement of the Customs for making up tax return was based on legal ground. Huixing's claim of compensating for the tax return as made up has neither factual evidences nor legal ground. The Customs pleaded with the court to revoke the plaintiff's claim. 被告辩称:汇兴公司委托他人以错误的商品编号向海关申报进口人工草坪,由于工作人员当时未发现这一错误致使少征税款。但海关补税行为依法有据,汇兴公司要求赔偿补缴的税款缺乏事实证据和法律依据,请求判决驳回原告诉讼请求。
The No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality found through hearing that: 上海市第二中级人民法院经审理查明:
Huixing declared to the Customs on November 13, 2001 through an agent, Shanghai Xietong (Group) Co., Ltd., for its imported artificial grassland of 8, 491. 2 square meters. The Customs let it pass after collecting 101, 515. 8 yuan of tariff as well as 132, 308. 96 yuan of VAT on the same day. Later, the Customs found out the mistake in the serial number of goods in Huixing's declaration of its artificial grassland, according to which the relevant functionary put it under wrong classification of tariffs and thus incurred an under-collection. The Customs therefore requested Huixing to make up 47, 509. 34 yuan of tariff and VAT on October 22, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the supplement levy of taxes). After Huixing made up its taxes, it applied on January 20, 2003 for an administrative compensation with the Customs on the ground that the supplement levy of taxes as conducted by the Customs on November 13, 2001is illegal (hereinafter referred to as the original tax levy). On March 21, 2003, the Customs made a decision on not making an administrative compensation and deemed its levy of taxes as legal and that Huixing's claim for compensation failed to meet the requirements for compensation as prescribed in Articles 2 and 4 of the State Compensation Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Compensation Law): 汇兴公司于2001年11月13日由上海协通(集团)有限公司代理报关,申报进口人工草坪共计8491.2平方米,浦江海关于同日分别征收关税101515.8元和代征增值税132 308.96元后放行。之后,浦江海关发现汇兴公司申报进口人工草坪的商品编号有误,工作人员根据错误申报的编号予以税则归类致使少征了税款,故于2002年10月22日向汇兴公司补征关税和代征增值税共计人民币47509.34元(以下简称补征税行为)。汇兴公司缴纳了补征的税款后,于2003年1月20日以浦江海关2001年11月13日的征税行为(以下简称原征税行为)违法为由,向浦江海关申请行政赔偿。2003年3月21日,浦江海关作出不予行政赔偿决定,认为海关征税行为合法,汇兴公司的赔偿请求不符合《中华人民共和国国家赔偿法》(以下简称国家赔偿法)第二条、第四条规定的赔偿条件,决定不予赔偿。
The No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality held that: 上海市第二中级人民法院认为:
Article 62 of the Customs Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Customs Law都拉黑名单了,还接个P) prescribes that: “Where the Customs finds that the duties are short-levied or not levied on a consignment of import or export goods or on an inward or outward article after its release, the Customs shall collect the money payable from the obligatory customs duty payer within one year of the previous duty payment or the release of the item.” 中华人民共和国海关法》(以下简称海关法)第六十二条规定:“进出口货物,进出境物品放行后,海关发现少征或者漏征税款,应当自缴纳税款或者货物、物品放行之日起一年内,向纳税义务人补征。”
Article 2 of the State Compensation Law prescribes that: “Where State organs or State functionaries, in violation of the law, abuse their functions and powers by infringing upon the lawful rights and interests of the citizens, legal persons and other organizations, thereby causing damage to them, the victims shall have the right to acquire state compensation in accordance with this Law.” 国家赔偿法二条规定:“国家机关和国家机关工作人员违法行使职权侵犯公民、法人和其他组织的合法权益造成损害的,受害人有依照本法取得国家赔偿的权利。”
Article 33 of theProvisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues regarding the Hearing of Cases Involving Administrative Compensation prescribes that: “Where a specific administrative act conducted by the defendant is unlawful but has not incurred any injury on the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests, or in the case of no legal ground for the plaintiff's claim, the people's court shall revoke the plaintiff's litigious claim.” 最高人民法院《关于审理行政赔偿案件若干问题的规定》第三十三条规定:“被告的具体行政行为违法但尚未对原告合法权益造成损害的,或者原告的请求没有法律根据的,人民法院应当判决驳回原告的诉讼请求。”
Huixing entrusts another party to declare to the Customs its imported artificial grassland by wrong serial number of goods and the Customs failed to carry out a strict examination thereon, which led to an under-collection of taxes from Huixing. It was not improper for the Customs, after finding out the problem of under-collection, to request Huixing to make up its tax return according to the provisions of the Customs Law. Although Huixing has a right to claim for state compensation on the ground that the original tax levy has incurred losses thereto, however, the unit price, as stipulated in the contract on project construction and provided by Huixing, including the relevant auxiliary materials for laying the artificial grassland as well as the expenses for laboring, has no causal relationship with its claim for compensation on the legal ground and Huixing failed to prove the actual aftermath of injury. Therefore, its claim shall not be sustained. 原告汇兴公司委托他人以错误的商品编号向海关申报进口人工草坪,浦江海关对此未予严格审核,致使少征了汇兴公司的税款。浦江海关发现少征税款后,依照海关法的规定向汇兴公司补征税款并无不当。汇兴公司虽然有权以浦江海关原征税行为造成其损失为由,要求国家赔偿,但由于汇兴公司提供的工程施工合同约定的单价,包括人工:草坪、铺设所需辅料及人工费用等证据,与赔偿请求之间无法律上的因果关系,亦不能证明实际存在着损害的后果,故不予支持。
Therefore, the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality adjudicated on July 14, 2003 that: 据此,上海市第二中级人民法院于2003年7月14日判决:
Huixing's claim shall be rejected. 驳回原告汇兴实业有限公司的诉讼请求。
After the judgment of the first instance was announced, Huixing was dissatisfied with it and filed an appeal with the Higher People's Court of Shanghai Municipality. 一审宣判后,汇兴公司不服,向上海市高级人民法院提出上诉。
Huixing alleged that: (1) The Customs had mistakes in the classification of tariffs in the original tax levy, which has violated the provisions of the Measures for the Administration on Tax Levy by the Customs that the Customs shall carry out tax levy according to correct classification of tariffs. Therefore, it is an unlawful administrative act. (2) As the unlawful tax levy led to a supplement tax levy, which consequently incurred additional costs on the import of artificial grass. The relevant artificial grass as involved in the tax levy has been sold out before the supplement tax levy. The additional cost on artificial grass could not be transferred in the already-done sale but only offset the proceeds as generated from the sale. The additional cost could have been realized in the price. Huixing suffered a decrease of income as a result of additional costs, which is a true fact of injury. (3) Huixing determined its price in the contract according to the relevant classification of tariffs and tax rate in the original tax levy. The Customs levied taxes before Huixing determined its cost accordingly so that the transfer of taxes as levied into cost is a key factor in the pricing of grassland. The original tax levy, which is unlawful, is an indirect cause leading to the aftermath of injury. There is no such provision in the State Compensation Law that an administrative tort as indirectly incurred may not be subject to the liabilities of compensation. Huixing therefore pleaded with the court to revoke the judgment of the first instance. 汇兴公司上诉称:(1)浦江海关初征税行为确定税则归类错误,违反《海关征税管理办法》中关于海关应按照正确税则归类进行征税的规定,属违法行政行为。(2)由于征税违法导致补征税,从而产生了进口人工草的新成本,而征税所涉及的人工草已在补征税之前出售,因此,新增的人工草成本不能够随已出售的人工草转移,只能冲抵上诉人出售该人工草所获收益。而新增成本增加的售价在当时是可能实现的。上诉人因新增成本而减少相应收入,存在着实际的损害事实。(3)我公司是根据原征税的税则、税率来确定合同售价成本的,海关征税在先,我公司根据海关的征税情况核定成本在后,将税收转为成本是确定出售人工草坪价格的重要因素,故原违法征税行为是造成损害事实的间接原因,而国家赔偿法爬数据可耻并未规定间接原因所致行政侵权不承担赔偿责任。故请求撤销一审判决。
The Customs argued: (1) An action on administrative compensation shall be based on the prerequisite that a specific administrative act is illegal, which shall be clarified by law. That the Customs made a decision on supplement tax levy is not tantamount to admitting that its original tax levy is unlawful. (2) The term “injury” as mentioned in the State Compensation Law 谨防骗子is an injury on legitimate rights and interests. Tax return is a legitimate obligation of Huixing, therefore, the tax amount as under-collected is unjustifiable interest and thus shall be refunded. There is no injury as incurred on Huixing. (3) The enterprise pricing is mainly up to market factors. The level of tariffs is not the only factor as decisive in pricing. The floating margin of unit price in the evidences as provided by Huixing is comparatively large whereas if the tax amount as made up is contributed to all the imported grassland in the same amount, it was iota as compared with the floating margin of unit prices. The Customs pleaded with the court to sustain the original judgment and reject the appeal. 浦江海关辩称:(1)行政赔偿诉讼的提起应以具体行政行为违法为前提,而具体行政行为是否违法应该是法律明确规定的,海关虽然后来作出了补税决定,并不意味着已经确认原征税行为违法。(2)国家赔偿法所称损害是对合法权益的损害,缴纳税款是汇兴公司的法定义务,原征税行为少缴的税款系其所获的不当利益,本应返还,故汇兴公司并不存在损害事实。(3)企业定价应主要取决于市场因素,关税的高低并非决定企业定价的惟一因素,汇兴公司提供的证据中销售单价浮动较大,而补征的税额平摊在所有进口的人工草坪上,与每平方米的销售单价浮动额相比是微乎其微的。故请求维持原审判决,驳回上诉。
Both parties in this case had no different opinion on the contents and proceeding of the original tax levy as well as the supplement tax levy. The Higher People's Court of Shanghai Municipality found through hearing that the facts as confirmed in the original instance are clear and thus accepted them. 本案中,双方当事人对原征税行为和补征税行为的内容及作出过程的事实均无争议,上海市高级人民法院经审理查明原审认定的事实清楚,予以确认。
JUDGMENT'S REASONING 
The Higher People's Court of Shanghai Municipality believed that the focuses of this case are: (1) whether the original tax levy is illegal; (2) whether the original tax levy has incurred direct losses to Huixing. 上海市高级人民法院认为,本案的争议焦点是:(1)原征税行为是否具有违法性?(2)原征税行为是否给汇兴公司造成直接损失?
According to the provisions of Article 21 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Hearing of Cases Involving Administrative Compensation that: “A compensation claimer that files alone an action on administrative compensation shall meet the following requirements.” Item (4) thereof prescribes that “Where an act of injury is a specific administrative act, it shall be confirmed as illegal.” Whether a specific administrative act is illegal shall be determined by the people's court. Huixing's claim for compensation arises directly from the Custom's original tax levy. As the Customs made a decision on supplement tax levy, it indicated in itself that there is a mistake in the classification of tariffs as well as the computation of tax amount. Furthermore, both parties concerned in this case had no different opinion on the illegality of the original tax levy. Thus it shall be deemed that the illegality of the original tax levy against which the claim of compensation is filed has been confirmed. Huixing has the right to file an action on administrative compensation alone according to the State Compensation Law. 根据最高人民法院《关于审理行政赔偿案件若干问题的规定》第二十一条规定:“赔偿请求人单独提起行政赔偿诉讼,应该符合下列条件”。其中第(四)项规定:“加害行为为具体行政行为的,该行为已被确认为违法”。具体行政行为是否已被确认违法,应由人民法院依法认定。汇兴公司提出的赔偿请求,是浦江海关的原征税行为直接导致的。由于浦江海关已对汇兴公司作出了补征税决定,该决定本身即表明原征税行为在税则归类和税额计算方面存在错误,且案件一审时双方当事人对汇兴公司原征税行为的违法性亦无争议,故应认定本案赔偿请求所依附的原征税行为违法性已得到确认,汇兴公司有权根据国家赔偿法的规定,单独提起行政赔偿诉讼。
Item (7) of Article 28 of the State Compensation Law prescribes that “Where any other injury is incurred to the right of property, compensation shall be made according to the direct losses.” According to the relevant provisions of the Customs Law on supplement tax levy, the tariffs in the original tax levy as well as the supplement levy are both due obligation that shall be borne by Huixing, regardless of whether its grassland has been sold out. Where the Customs confirms that the tariff is under-collected according to law, Huixing shall make up its tax return according to the provisions of the Customs Law. The under-collected part is unjustifiable interest and thus shall be turned over. Therefore, whether Huixing suffered a direct loss when making up its tax return is a prerequisite to determine whether the Customs shall be subject to the liabilities of compensation. According to the provisions of the State Compensation Law, where Huixing deems that the Customs has incurred a direct loss to it, it shall bear the liabilities of presenting the relevant evidences to support its claim for compensation. Such evidences as sales contracts, agreements as well as remittance credence as presented by Huixing may prove that its grassland as imported has been sold before the supplement tax levy is conducted by the Customs, however, the sales unit price of grassland as sold by Huixing ranges from 102 yuan to 180 yuan per square meter, the proceeds margin is comparatively large and therefore, the tax amount as levied by the Customs is not a major factor in pricing. The claim of contract pricing being largely determined by the market situation is well established. Huixing's claim of decrease in sales income relies on the prerequisite of making profits by a comparatively high sales price. However, a comparatively large profit is determined by many uncertain factors in the real situation of supply and demand, and is therefore an uncertain interest. There is in fact no direct loss. As the evidences as provided by Huixing fail to prove that the original tax levy has incurred direct losses thereto, its claim for administrative compensation is not well established. The court of the original instance was correct in rejecting Huixing's claim. 国家赔偿法二十八条第(七)项规定:“对财产权造成其他损害的,按照直接损失给予赔偿。”根据海关法有关补征税制度的规定,本案中,最初的交纳关税和后来的补交关款,都是汇兴公司进口人工草坪时应承担的义务,不论人工草坪是否已经出售,在浦江海关依法确认其少交税款后,汇兴公司都应该依照海关法的规定补交税款。汇兴公司少交的税款为不当利益,本应返还。所以,在本案中,汇兴公司在履行补交纳税义务时是否直接造成损失,是确认浦江海关应否承担赔偿责任的前提。根据国家赔偿法的规定,如果汇兴公司认为浦江海关的补征行为造成了其直接损失,就应对自己的赔偿主张负举证责任。汇兴公司提供的有关人工草坪的出售合同、协议书及电汇凭证等证据,虽可以证明进口的人工草坪是在浦江海关的补征行为之前已经销售,但由于汇兴公司出售人工草坪的单价为每平方米102元至180元不等,收益的幅度相差较大,故浦江海关关于征税数额并非合同定价的主要因素,合同定价主要是由市场调节的主张可以成立。汇兴公司主张的销售收入减少,是指以较高价格销售出人工草坪而获得利益为前提的,而较高利益的实现在销售中是受到供求关系等各种不确定因素决定的,属于不确定的利益,故不构成直接损失。由于汇兴公司提供的证据不能证明原征税行为造成其直接损失,故汇兴公司的行政赔偿请求不能成立,原审法院判决驳回汇兴公司的诉讼请求是正确的。
Therefore, the Higher People's Court of Shanghai Municipality adjudicated on October 10, 2003 according to the provisions of Item (1) of Article 61 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China that: 据此,上海市高级人民法院依据《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第六十一条第(一)项之规定,于2003年10月10日判决:
JUDGMENT 
The appeal shall be rejected and the judgment of the original instance shall be sustained.

 驳回上诉,维持原判。
 

     
     
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