>>>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
 
Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing the Twenty-First Group of Guiding Cases [Effective]
最高人民法院关于发布第21批指导性案例的通知 [现行有效]
【法宝引证码】

Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing the Twenty-First Group of Guiding Cases 

最高人民法院关于发布第21批指导性案例的通知

(No. 3 [2019] of the Supreme People's Court) (法〔2019〕3号)

The higher people's courts of all provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government; the Military Court of the People's Liberation Army; and the Production and Construction Corps Branch of the Higher People's Court of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region: 各省、自治区、直辖市高级人民法院,解放军军事法院,新疆维吾尔自治区高级人民法院生产建设兵团分院:
Upon deliberation and decision of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court, six cases (Guiding Cases No. 107-112) including Sinochem International (Overseas) Pte. Ltd v. ThyssenKrupp Metallurgical Products GmbH (dispute over a contract for the international sale of goods) are hereby issued as the twenty-first group of guiding cases for reference in trial of similar cases. 经最高人民法院审判委员会讨论决定,现将中化国际(新加坡)有限公司诉蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司国际货物买卖合同纠纷案等六个案例(指导案例107-112号),作为第21批指导性案例发布,供在审判类似案件时参照。
Supreme People's Court 最高人民法院
February 25, 2019 2019年2月25日
Guiding Case No. 107 指导案例107号
Sinochem International (Overseas) Pte. Ltd v. ThyssenKrupp Metallurgical Products GmbH (dispute over a contract for the international sale of goods 中化国际(新加坡)有限公司诉蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司国际货物买卖合同纠纷案
(Issued on February 25, 2019 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court) (最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2019年2月25日发布)
Keywords 关键词
Civil; a contract for international sale of goods; United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods; application of law; fundamental breach of contract 民事/国际货物买卖合同/联合国国际货物销售合同公约/法律适用/根本违约
Key Points of Judgment 裁判要点
1. Where the countries of the parties to a contract for the international sale of goods are contracting countries of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), the provisions of the CISG should preferentially apply. For the content where there are no provisions in the CISG, the law as agreed in the contract shall apply. Where the parties have explicitly excluded the application of the CISG in the contract for international sale of goods, the CISG shall not apply. 1.国际货物买卖合同的当事各方所在国为《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的缔约国,应优先适用公约的规定,公约没有规定的内容,适用合同中约定适用的法律。国际货物买卖合同中当事人明确排除适用《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的,则不应适用该公约。
2. In the contract for international sale of goods, although the goods delivered by the seller have defects, as long as the buyer can use or resell them after making reasonable efforts, it shall not be deemed as fundamental breach of contract as prescribed in the CISG. 2.在国际货物买卖合同中,卖方交付的货物虽然存在缺陷,但只要买方经过合理努力就能使用货物或转售货物,不应视为构成《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》规定的根本违约的情形。
Legal Provisions 相关法条
Article 145 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国民法通则》第145条

Articles 1 and 25 of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods

 联合国国际货物销售合同公约》第1条、第25条
Basic Facts 基本案情
On April 11, 2008, Sinochem International (Overseas) Pte. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Sinochem Pte. Ltd”) and Thyssen Krupp Metallurgical Products GmbH (hereinafter referred to as “Krupp GmbH”) concluded a Purchase Contract for petroleum coke, stipulating that this Contract should be concluded, under the jurisdiction of, and interpreted in accordance with the then effective law of the New York State, U.S.A. Sinochem Pte. Ltd made the payment for goods in full amount as agreed, but the HGI of the petroleum coke delivered by Krupp GmbH was only 32, which was inconsistent with the typical value of the HGI ranging from 36 to 46 as agreed in the Contract. Sinochem Pte. Ltd held the opinion that the act of Krupp GmbH constituted fundamental breach of contract and it requested the Court to order the rescission of the Contract and Krupp GmbH's refund of the payment for goods and compensation for losses. 2008年4月11日,中化国际(新加坡)有限公司(以下简称中化新加坡公司)与蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司(以下简称德国克虏伯公司)签订了购买石油焦的《采购合同》,约定本合同应当根据美国纽约州当时有效的法律订立、管辖和解释。中化新加坡公司按约支付了全部货款,但德国克虏伯公司交付的石油焦HGI指数仅为32,与合同中约定的HGI指数典型值为36-46之间不符。中化新加坡公司认为德国克虏伯公司构成根本违约,请求判令解除合同,要求德国克虏伯公司返还货款并赔偿损失。
Judgment 裁判结果
In the trial of first instance, the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province held that in accordance with the relevant provisions of the CISG, the HGI of the petroleum coke provided by Krupp GmbH was far below the standard as agreed in the Contract, resulting in failure to sell such petroleum coke at the domestic market and realize the expected objective when the sale contract was concluded. Therefore, the act of Krupp GmbH constituted fundamental breach of contract. On December 19, 2012, the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province entered a Civil Judgment (No. 0004 [2009], First, Civil Division III, HPC, Jiangsu) that: (1) The Purchase Contract concluded by and between Sinochem Pte. Ltd and Krupp GmbH on April 11, 2008 should be declared invalid. (2) Krupp GmbH should, within 30 days after this Judgment came into force, refund the payment for goods of USD2,684,302.9 made by Sinochem Pte. Ltd and pay the interest from September 25, 2008 to the date of payment as determined in this Judgment. (3) Krupp GmbH should, within 30 days after this Judgment came into force, pay Sinochem Pte. Ltd USD520,339.77 as compensation for losses. 江苏省高级人民法院一审认为,根据《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的有关规定,德国克虏伯公司提供的石油焦HGI指数远低于合同约定标准,导致石油焦难以在国内市场销售,签订买卖合同时的预期目的无法实现,故德国克虏伯公司的行为构成根本违约。江苏省高级人民法院于2012年12月19日作出(2009)苏民三初字第0004号民事判决:一、宣告蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司与中化国际(新加坡)有限公司于2008年4月11日签订的《采购合同》无效。二、蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司于本判决生效之日起三十日内返还中化国际(新加坡)有限公司货款2684302.9美元并支付自2008年9月25日至本判决确定的给付之日的利息。三、蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司于本判决生效之日起三十日内赔偿中化国际(新加坡)有限公司损失520339.77美元。
After the judgment was pronounced, Krupp GmbH refused to accept the judgment of first instance and appealed to the Supreme People's Court, contending that the judgment of first instance was erroneous in the determination of the applicable law in this case. The Supreme People's Court held that the fact-finding in the judgment of first instance was basically clear, but partial application of law was erroneous and the determination of liabilities was inappropriate, which should be corrected. On June 30, 2014, the Supreme People's Court entered a Civil Judgment (No. 35 [2013], Final, Civil Division IV, SPC) that: (1) Item (1) of the Civil Judgment (No. 0004 [2009], First, Civil Division III, HPC, Jiangsu) entered by the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province should be set aside. (2) Item (2) of the Civil Judgment (No. 0004 [2009], First, Civil Division III, HPC, Jiangsu) entered by the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province should be altered and Krupp GmbH should, within 30 days after this Judgment came into force, pay Sinochem Pte. Ltd USD1,610,581.74 as compensation for losses to the payment for goods and pay the interest from September 25, 2008 to the date of payment as determined in this Judgment. (3) Item (3) of the Civil Judgment (No. 0004 [2009], First, Civil Division III, HPC, Jiangsu) entered by the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province should be altered and Krupp GmbH should, within 30 days after this Judgment came into force, pay Sinochem Pte. Ltd USD98,442.79 as compensation for losses arising from the storage charges. (4) Other claims of Sinochem Pte. Ltd should be dismissed. 宣判后,德国克虏伯公司不服一审判决,向最高人民法院提起上诉,认为一审判决对本案适用法律认定错误。最高人民法院认为一审判决认定事实基本清楚,但部分法律适用错误,责任认定不当,应当予以纠正。最高人民法院于2014年6月30日作出(2013)民四终字第35号民事判决:一、撤销江苏省高级人民法院(2009)苏民三初字第0004号民事判决第一项。二、变更江苏省高级人民法院(2009)苏民三初字第0004号民事判决第二项为蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司于本判决生效之日起三十日内赔偿中化国际(新加坡)有限公司货款损失1610581.74美元并支付自2008年9月25日至本判决确定的给付之日的利息。三、变更江苏省高级人民法院(2009)苏民三初字第0004号民事判决第三项为蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司于本判决生效之日起三十日内赔偿中化国际(新加坡)有限公司堆存费损失98442.79美元。四、驳回中化国际(新加坡)有限公司的其他诉讼请求。
Judgment's Reasoning 裁判理由
The Supreme People's Court held that, this case was about dispute over a contract for the international sale of goods, both parties were foreign companies, and it involved foreign-related factors. Article 2 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-Related Civil Relationships (I) provided for that “For any foreign-related civil relationship occurring before the implementation of the Law on Choice of Law for Foreign-Related Civil Relationships, the people's courts shall determine the applicable laws in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations at the time of the occurrence of such foreign-related civil relationship; in case there were no applicable laws at that time, the applicable laws may be determined with reference to the Law on Choice of Law for Foreign-Related Civil Relationships.” The Purchase Contract involved was concluded on April 11, 2008, which was earlier than the time of implementation of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-Related Civil Relationships (hereinafter referred to as the “Law on Choice of Law for Foreign-Related Civil Relationships”). Article 145 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China at the time when the parties concluded the Purchase Contract provided that “The parties to a foreign-related contract may choose the applicable law for resolution of the contractual disputes, unless otherwise provided by the law. Where the parties to a foreign-related contract does not choose a law, the law of the country with the closest relationship with the contract shall apply.” Both parties to this case agreed in the Contract that it should be concluded, under the jurisdiction of, and interpreted in accordance with the then effective laws of New York State, U.S.A. and the agreement did not violate legal provisions and should be determined as valid. Since Singapore and Germany, the countries where the business places of both parties were located, were contracting parties to the CISG, the U.S.A. was also the contracting party to the CISG, and both parties chose the CISG as the basis for determining their rights and obligations and the application of the CISG was not excluded in the trial of first instance, it was accurate for the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province to try this case by applying the CISG. For issues involved in the trial of this case where there were no provisions in the CISG, the law of New York State, the U.S.A. chosen by the parties should apply. The Digest of Case Law on the CISG was not a part of the CISG and it could not serve as the legal basis for trying this case. However, it may serve as an appropriate reference material for how to accurately comprehend definitions of the relevant clauses of the CISG. 最高人民法院认为,本案为国际货物买卖合同纠纷,双方当事人均为外国公司,案件具有涉外因素。《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法〉若干问题的解释(一)》第二条规定:“涉外民事关系法律适用法实施以前发生的涉外民事关系,人民法院应当根据该涉外民事关系发生时的有关法律规定确定应当适用的法律;当时法律没有规定的,可以参照涉外民事关系法律适用法的规定确定。”案涉《采购合同》签订于2008年4月11日,在《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》实施之前,当事人签订《采购合同》时的《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百四十五条规定:“涉外合同的当事人可以选择处理合同争议所适用的法律,法律另有规定的除外。涉外合同的当事人没有选择的,适用与合同有最密切联系的国家的法律。”本案双方当事人在合同中约定应当根据美国纽约州当时有效的法律订立、管辖和解释,该约定不违反法律规定,应认定有效。由于本案当事人营业地所在国新加坡和德国均为《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》缔约国,美国亦为《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》缔约国,且在一审审理期间双方当事人一致选择适用《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》作为确定其权利义务的依据,并未排除《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的适用,江苏省高级人民法院适用《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》审理本案是正确的。而对于审理案件中涉及到的问题《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》没有规定的,应当适用当事人选择的美国纽约州法律。《〈联合国国际货物销售合同公约〉判例法摘要汇编》并非《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的组成部分,其不能作为审理本案的法律依据。但在如何准确理解《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》相关条款的含义方面,其可以作为适当的参考资料。
The typical value of the HGI of petroleum coke as agreed by both parties in the Purchase Contract was from 36 to 46. However, the HGI of petroleum coke actually delivered by Krupp GmbH was 32, which was lower than the minimum typical value of the HGI as agreed by both parties and did not conform to the contractual stipulations. It was accurate for the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province to hold that the act of Krupp GmbH constituted fundamental breach of contract. 双方当事人在《采购合同》中约定的石油焦HGI指数典型值在36-46之间,而德国克虏伯公司实际交付的石油焦HGI指数为32,低于双方约定的HGI指数典型值的最低值,不符合合同约定。江苏省高级人民法院认定德国克虏伯公司构成违约是正确的。
With respect to whether the aforesaid act of Krupp GmbH constituted fundamental breach of contract, first, from both parties' agreement on the chemical and physical characteristics and specifications that petroleum coke should satisfy in the Contract, the moisture rate, sulphur content, ash content, volatile content, size, calorific value, and HGI of petroleum coke were agreed in the Contract. Based on the current facts, for the petroleum coke delivered by Krupp GmbH, Sinochem Pte. Ltd deemed that only the HGI did not conform to the Contract and it raised no objection to other six indicators. In light of the testimonies of witnesses and the statements made by witnesses in court as submitted by the parties, the HGI referred to the grinding index of petroleum coke. The lower the HGI was, the higher the hardness of petroleum coke was, and the more difficult the grinding was. However, the explanation of the School of Materials Science and Engineering of Shanghai University issued by Sinochem Pte. Ltd did not deny that petroleum coke with the HGI of 32 could be used and it was deemed that the purposes of such petroleum coke would be limited. Therefore, it may be determined that although the HGI of the petroleum coke involved was inconsistent with the value as agreed in the Contract, this batch of petroleum coke still had use value. Second, in the trial of first instance, for the purpose of reducing losses, Sinochem Pte. Ltd made great efforts to resell the petroleum coke involved and in the letters on the relevant issues sent to Krupp GmbH, Sinochem Pte. Ltd explicitly stated that the resale price of the petroleum coke involved “was not lower than the reasonable price at the market.” This fact explained that the petroleum coke involved may be sold at a reasonable price. Third, by taking into full account of the comprehension of clauses of the CISG on fundamental breach of contract in judgments of other countries, non-conformity of quality was not fundamental breach of contract as long as the buyer could use or resell the goods or even sell such goods at a discount after making reasonable efforts. Therefore, the act of Krupp GmbH of delivering petroleum coke with the HGI of 32 did not constitute fundamental breach of contract. The determination of the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province that the act of Krupp GmbH constituted fundamental breach of contract and the Purchase Contract was invalid was erroneous in the application of law and should be corrected. 关于德国克虏伯公司的上述违约行为是否构成根本违约的问题。首先,从双方当事人在合同中对石油焦需符合的化学和物理特性规格约定的内容看,合同对石油焦的受潮率、硫含量、灰含量、挥发物含量、尺寸、热值、硬度(HGI值)等七个方面作出了约定。而从目前事实看,对于德国克虏伯公司交付的石油焦,中化新加坡公司仅认为HGI指数一项不符合合同约定,而对于其他六项指标,中化新加坡公司并未提出异议。结合当事人提交的证人证言以及证人出庭的陈述,HGI指数表示石油焦的研磨指数,指数越低,石油焦的硬度越大,研磨难度越大。但中化新加坡公司一方提交的上海大学材料科学与工程学院出具的说明亦不否认HGI指数为32的石油焦可以使用,只是认为其用途有限。故可以认定虽然案涉石油焦HGI指数与合同约定不符,但该批石油焦仍然具有使用价值。其次,本案一审审理期间,中化新加坡公司为减少损失,经过积极的努力将案涉石油焦予以转售,且其在就将相关问题致德国克虏伯公司的函件中明确表示该批石油焦转售的价格“未低于市场合理价格”。这一事实说明案涉石油焦是可以以合理价格予以销售的。第三,综合考量其他国家裁判对《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》中关于根本违约条款的理解,只要买方经过合理努力就能使用货物或转售货物,甚至打些折扣,质量不符依然不是根本违约。故应当认为德国克虏伯公司交付HGI指数为32的石油焦的行为,并不构成根本违约。江苏省高级人民法院认定德国克虏伯公司构成根本违约并判决宣告《采购合同》无效,适用法律错误,应予以纠正。
...... (生效裁判审判人员:任雪峰、成明珠、朱科)
 指导案例108号
 浙江隆达不锈钢有限公司诉A.P.穆勒-马士基有限公司海上货物运输合同纠纷案
 (最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2019年2月25日发布)
 关键词
 民事/海上货物运输合同/合同变更/改港/退运/抗辩权
 裁判要点
 在海上货物运输合同中,依据合同法三百零八条的规定,承运人将货物交付收货人之前,托运人享有要求变更运输合同的权利,但双方当事人仍要遵循合同法五条规定的公平原则确定各方的权利和义务。托运人行使此项权利时,承运人也可相应行使一定的抗辩权。如果变更海上货物运输合同难以实现或者将严重影响承运人正常营运,承运人可以拒绝托运人改港或者退运的请求,但应当及时通知托运人不能变更的原因。
 相关法条
 中华人民共和国合同法》第308条
 中华人民共和国海商法》第86条
 基本案情
 2014年6月,浙江隆达不锈钢有限公司(以下简称隆达公司)由中国宁波港出口一批不锈钢无缝产品至斯里兰卡科伦坡港,货物报关价值为366918.97美元。隆达公司通过货代向A.P.穆勒-马士基有限公司(以下简称马士基公司)订舱,涉案货物于同年6月28日装载于4个集装箱内装船出运,出运时隆达公司要求做电放处理。2014年7月9日,隆达公司通过货代向马士基公司发邮件称,发现货物运错目的地要求改港或者退运。马士基公司于同日回复,因货物距抵达目的港不足2天,无法安排改港,如需退运则需与目的港确认后回复。次日,隆达公司的货代询问货物退运是否可以原船带回,马士基公司于当日回复“原船退回不具有操作性,货物在目的港卸货后,需要由现在的收货人在目的港清关后,再向当地海关申请退运。海关批准后,才可以安排退运事宜”。2014年7月10日,隆达公司又提出“这个货要安排退运,就是因为清关清不了,所以才退回宁波的,有其他办法吗”。此后,马士基公司再未回复邮件。
 涉案货物于2014年7月12日左右到达目的港。马士基公司应隆达公司的要求于2015年1月29日向其签发了编号603386880的全套正本提单。根据提单记载,托运人为隆达公司,收货人及通知方均为VENUSSTEEL PVT LTD,起运港中国宁波,卸货港科伦坡。2015年5月19日,隆达公司向马士基公司发邮件表示已按马士基公司要求申请退运。马士基公司随后告知隆达公司涉案货物已被拍卖。
 裁判结果
 宁波海事法院于2016年3月4日作出(2015)甬海法商初字第534号民事判决,认为隆达公司因未采取自行提货等有效措施导致涉案货物被海关拍卖,相应货损风险应由该公司承担,故驳回隆达公司的诉讼请求。一审判决后,隆达公司提出上诉。浙江省高级人民法院于2016年9月29日作出(2016)浙民终222号民事判决:撤销一审判决;马士基公司于判决送达之日起十日内赔偿隆达公司货物损失183459.49美元及利息。二审法院认为依据合同法三百零八条,隆达公司在马士基公司交付货物前享有请求改港或退运的权利。在隆达公司提出退运要求后,马士基公司既未明确拒绝安排退运,也未通知隆达公司自行处理,对涉案货损应承担相应的赔偿责任,酌定责任比例为50%。马士基公司不服二审判决,向最高人民法院申请再审。最高人民法院于2017年12月29日作出(2017)最高法民再412号民事判决:撤销二审判决;维持一审判决。
 裁判理由
 最高人民法院认为,合同法海商法有关调整海上运输关系、船舶关系的规定属于普通法与特别法的关系。根据海商法八十九条的规定,船舶在装货港开航前,托运人可以要求解除合同。本案中,隆达公司在涉案货物海上运输途中请求承运人进行退运或者改港,因海商法未就航程中托运人要求变更运输合同的权利进行规定,故本案可适用合同法三百零八条关于托运人要求变更运输合同权利的规定。基于特别法优先适用于普通法的法律适用基本原则,合同法三百零八条规定的是一般运输合同,该条规定在适用于海上货物运输合同的情况下,应该受到海商法基本价值取向及强制性规定的限制。托运人依据合同法三百零八条主张变更运输合同的权利不得致使海上货物运输合同中各方当事人利益显失公平,也不得使承运人违反对其他托运人承担的安排合理航线等义务,或剥夺承运人关于履行海上货物运输合同变更事项的相应抗辩权。
 合同法总则规定的基本原则是合同法立法的准则,是适用于合同法全部领域的准则,也是合同法具体制度及规范的依据。依据合同法三百零八条的规定,在承运人将货物交付收货人之前,托运人享有要求变更运输合同的权利,但双方当事人仍要遵循合同法五条规定的公平原则确定各方的权利和义务。海上货物运输具有运输量大、航程预先拟定、航线相对固定等特殊性,托运人要求改港或者退运的请求有时不仅不易操作,还会妨碍承运人的正常营运或者给其他货物的托运人或收货人带来较大损害。在此情况下,如果要求承运人无条件服从托运人变更运输合同的请求,显失公平。因此,在海上货物运输合同下,托运人并非可以无限制地行使请求变更的权利,承运人也并非在任何情况下都应无条件服从托运人请求变更的指示。为合理平衡海上货物运输合同中各方当事人利益之平衡,在托运人行使要求变更权利的同时,承运人也相应地享有一定的抗辩权利。如果变更运输合同难以实现或者将严重影响承运人正常营运,承运人可以拒绝托运人改港或者退运的要求,但应当及时通知托运人不能执行的原因。如果承运人关于不能执行原因等抗辩成立,承运人未按照托运人退运或改港的指示执行则并无不当。
 ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
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;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
【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