Administrative reconsideration decision
Applicant: Qing.
Respondent: Chongqing Hechuan District Market Supervision and Administration Bureau.
The applicant requested to revoke the decision not to file the case in the "Reply to the Handling of Complaints and Reports from the Letter" (hereinafter referred to as the "Reply") made by the respondent Chongqing Hechuan District Market Supervision and Administration Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the "Reply"), ordered to make a new disposition, and submitted an application for administrative reconsideration to this organ on March 18, 2024, and this machine accepted it in accordance with law on March 19, 2024 and applied the ordinary procedures for trial. The case is now closed.
The applicant requested: to revoke the decision not to file the case in the Reply and order the respondent to make a new decision.
The applicant alleged: the applicant complained to the respondent that the Wulong vermicelli and Chongqing hot and sour noodles sold by a certain supermarket (XX city store) did not meet the product standard code Q/ZS0001S, and the white sesame sugar cake was falsely labeled with ingredient information; The Wulong seed flour sold in a certain supermarket (a certain store) does not meet the product standard code Q/ZS0001S, and the white sesame sugar crisp is falsely labeled with ingredient information. The respondent's decision not to file the case in the Reply was based on unclear determination of facts and erroneous application of law. Dissatisfied, the applicant reconsidered.
The respondent asserted that the domicile of XX supermarket (XX city store) and XX supermarket (XX store) was within the administrative area for which the respondent was responsible, and the respondent was the qualified entity responsible for verifying and handling the complaints and reports in this case. After receiving the applicant's report on February 17, 2024, the respondent issued a "Reply" on February 26, 2024, and notified the applicant of the decision not to file the case by mail on February 27, 2024, which met the statutory time limit and the procedure was lawful.
After verification, the name of a certain supermarket (a certain city store) is a certain city branch of Hechuan District of Chongqing XX Supermarket Co., Ltd., and the name of a certain supermarket (a certain store) is a certain branch of Hechuan District of Chongqing XX Supermarket Co., Ltd., and the two units have obtained business licenses and food business licenses in accordance with the law, and the licenses are within the validity period. When the respondent supervised and inspected the supermarket (XX city store), it was found that the reported products Wulong vermicelli, Chongqing hot and sour noodles, and white sesame sugar crisp were for sale, and the respondent extracted the supplier qualifications, food factory inspection reports, purchase bills, purchase and sales ledgers and other information of the reported products. When the respondent supervised and inspected the supermarket (a certain store) on the spot, it was found that the reported product Wulong Flour was for sale, and no white sesame sugar crisp was found for sale, and the respondent extracted the supplier qualifications, food factory inspection reports, purchase bills, purchase and sales ledgers and other information of the reported products. The respondent believes that XX supermarket (XX city store) and XX supermarket (XX store) have provided the above information to the respondent, and have fulfilled the obligations of the purchase inspection record system in accordance with the "Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China", and there is no evidence to prove that the reported person has violated the law, which does not meet the provisions of Article 19, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the "Provisions on Administrative Punishment Procedures for Market Supervision and Administration", and decided not to file the case. Regarding the labeling of the reported product itself, the respondent transferred the case clues to the market supervision and administration department where the product producer is located in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China and the Provisions on Administrative Punishment Procedures for Market Supervision and Administration. The respondent made a decision not to file the case, found that the facts were clear, the evidence was conclusive, the law was correctly applied, and the procedures were lawful, and requested the reconsideration organ to uphold it.
After the trial, it was ascertained that on February 17, 2024, the respondent received the written material "Complaint and Report Letter" mailed by the applicant, complaining and reporting that the Wulong vermicelli and Chongqing hot and sour noodles sold by a certain supermarket (XX city store) did not meet the product standard code Q/ZS0001S, and the white sesame sugar crisp was falsely labeled with ingredient information; The Wulong seed flour sold in a certain supermarket (a certain store) does not meet the product standard code Q/ZS0001S, and the white sesame sugar crisp is falsely labeled with ingredient information. Request that the respondent accept and file a case for investigation and punishment, reward the complainant and whistleblower in accordance with the law, and refund the complained informant.
On February 19, 2024, the respondent's law enforcement officers inspected the business site of XX supermarket (XX city store) on the spot, and extracted the business license and food business license of XX supermarket (XX city store), and the name of XX supermarket (XX city store) is XX City Branch of Hechuan District, Chongqing XX Supermarket Co., Ltd. The respondent found the reported products Wulong vermicelli, Chongqing hot and sour noodles and white sesame sugar crisp for sale on the supermarket shelves, and extracted the business license, food business license, business license of the production enterprise and food production license, food factory inspection report, purchase bill, purchase and sales record ledger and other materials of the aforesaid reported products, and the reported products were all qualified for factory inspection. On the same day, the respondent's law enforcement officers inspected the business site of a certain supermarket (a certain store) on the spot, and extracted the business license and food business license of a certain supermarket (a certain store), and the name of a certain supermarket (a certain store) was a certain branch of Hechuan District, Chongqing XX Supermarket Co., Ltd. The respondent found the reported product Wulong Seed Flour for sale on the supermarket shelf, but did not find the white sesame candy crisp for sale. The respondent extracted the business license and food business license of the supplier of the reported products Wulong Seed Flour and White Sesame Sugar Cake, the business license and food production license of the production enterprise, the food factory inspection report, the purchase bill, the purchase and sales record ledger and other materials, and the reported products were all qualified for factory inspection.
On February 26, 2024, the respondent issued a "Case Transfer Letter" to transfer the applicant's illegal clues that "the purchased Wulong vermicelli, Wulong noodles, and Chongqing hot and sour noodles do not meet the scope of application of the product standard code Q/ZS0001S" to the Market Supervision and Administration Bureau of Wulong District, Chongqing Municipality, and issued a "Case Transfer Letter" to transfer the illegal clues that the applicant claimed that "the purchased white sesame sugar crisp was falsely labeled with ingredient information" to the Market Supervision and Administration Bureau of Jize County, Handan City, Hebei Province. On the same day, the respondent issued a Reply, informing the applicant that it would not file the case. The Respondent served the Reply on the Applicant on 27 February 2024.
The above facts include the complaint and report handling registration form, complaint and report letter (5 copies) and product photos provided by the respondent, the reply to the complaint and report from the letter from Qing, the mailing flow chart, the on-site record, the evidence extraction form, the business license and food business license of the Hechuan District Branch of Chongqing XX Supermarket Co., Ltd., the business license and food business license of Chongqing Wulong XX Group Co., Ltd., the business license and food production license of Chongqing Food Co., Ltd., Sichuan Trading Co., Ltd. business license and food business license, Jize County Food Co., Ltd. business license and food production license, Wulong flour inspection results (Wulong noodles), Wulong flour inspection results (Chongqing hot and sour noodles), Wulong flour inspection results (Wulong flour), candy factory inspection report, distribution receipt, sales record ledger, case transfer letter, non-filing approval form, administrative law enforcement certificate and other evidence to prove.
This organ believes that: In this case, the domicile of XX supermarket (XX City store) and XX supermarket (XX store) is within the administrative area for which the respondent is responsible, and the respondent has the statutory duty to verify and handle the complaints and reports in this case.
The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the respondent's decision not to file a case in response to the applicant's report is appropriate and legal. According to the facts ascertained in the case, XX supermarket (XX city store) and XX supermarket (XX store) have fulfilled the purchase inspection obligation in strict accordance with the provisions of Article 53 of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, and the food factory inspection report states that the reported products have passed the factory inspection, and XX supermarket (XX city store) and XX supermarket (XX store) have fulfilled their duty of care as food business operators. In this case, the applicant filed a report on the issue of food labeling, and the respondent transferred the clues to the market supervision department where the producer is located, even if the reported product was determined by the market supervision and administration department where the producer was located that its label identification did not meet the food safety standards, according to Article 136 of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, "the food business operator has fulfilled the obligations such as purchase inspection stipulated in this Law, and there is sufficient evidence to prove that it does not know that the food purchased does not meet the food safety standards, and can truthfully explain the source of its purchase, can be exempted from penalty ......", in the case of food business operators to perform the obligation of purchase inspection and can explain the source of purchase, the food business operator can still be exempted from punishment, in this case, a certain supermarket (XX city store) and a certain supermarket (XX store) in the purchase of goods to perform the inspection obligations prescribed by law, and can truthfully explain the source of their purchase and provide the respondent with relevant certificates, the respondent made a decision not to file the case, is not improper.
According to the first paragraph of Article 18 of the "Provisions on Administrative Punishment Procedures for Market Regulation", "the market regulation department shall verify leads on illegal conduct discovered in accordance with its supervision and inspection authority or through complaints, reports, transfers from other departments, or assignment by superiors, and shall be verified within 15 working days from the date of discovery of the clues or receipt of materials, and the responsible person of the market regulation department shall decide whether to file a case; Under special circumstances, an extension of 15 working days may be granted upon approval by the person in charge of the market regulation department. Except as otherwise provided by laws, regulations, and rules. and paragraph 2 of article 31 of the "Interim Measures for the Handling of Complaints and Reports for Market Regulation": "Where a whistleblower makes a report in his or her real name, the market regulation department with the authority to handle it shall also inform the whistleblower within five working days of making a decision on whether to file a case." After receiving the applicant's complaint and report, the respondent shall make a "reply" within the statutory time limit and inform the applicant in accordance with the law that the procedure is lawful.
To sum up, the Respondent's Reply finds that the facts are clear, the evidence is conclusive, the legal basis for application is correct, the procedures are lawful, and the content is appropriate, and in accordance with Article 68 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People's Republic of China, this organ decides:
The "Reply to the Handling of Complaints and Reports from Qing's Letter" made by the respondent Chongqing Hechuan District Market Supervision and Administration Bureau on February 26, 2024 was maintained.
If the applicant is not satisfied with this decision, he may file a lawsuit with the People's Court of Hechuan District, Chongqing Municipality within 15 days from the date of receipt of this decision.
The People's Government of Hechuan District, Chongqing
May 17, 2024
Source: WeChat official account of "Market Legal Exchange" 2024-06-26, website of the People's Government of Hechuan District, Chongqing
Editor: Huang Keshu
First Trial: Jiang Hao
Reviewer: Gu Yan
Final review: Yang Hong
Disclaimer: The pictures and text used in this article are part (or all) from the Internet, and only represent the author's point of view. It does not mean that this official account agrees with its views and is responsible for its authenticity, only providing reference does not constitute investment and application advice, the copyright belongs to the original author or institution, if there is any infringement, please contact to delete.