It seems you've provided only the instruction but no Chinese text to translate. Please provide the Chinese content you'd like translated.

"Mr. Zhang, who does catering in Futian District, received a "Decision on Administrative Penalty" stamped with the official seal of the Municipal Supervision Bureau in March this year, and fined 200,000 yuan for "irregular food ingredient labels". Mr. Zhang felt that the same batch of ingredients passed the sampling inspection, and the label defects did not affect food safety, and the proportion of fines was obviously unbalanced. He wanted to write his own application for reconsideration, but he was afraid of missing the deadline. President Li of Nanshan Kai Electronics Factory also faced a similar dilemma - he was fined 2 million yuan for "putting into operation without acceptance" of environmental protection equipment. They are both stuck on the same issue: Public prosecutor, how should we fight?"

"1. After being punished, first clarify three things: the duration of relief, law enforcement procedures, and rationality."

"Many parties' first reaction is to find a relationship, but the remedy channel for administrative punishment is statutory, and there are only three ways: to apply for administrative reconsideration (within 60 days from the date of the decision, in writing or online), to file an administrative lawsuit (within 15 days from the date of receiving the reconsideration decision, or within 6 months from the date of direct prosecution), and to initiate administrative compensation procedures. These three deadlines are iron laws, and they are disqualified after one day. Taking Mr. Zhang as an example, if he receives the decision in October, the deadline for direct prosecution is April of the following year, but if he applies for reconsideration first and the reconsideration authority does not reply within 2 months, he can still prosecute again - the calculation of the deadline is more complicated than expected. More importantly, the court reviews not only whether there are illegal facts, but also whether the punishment is obviously improper. Article 63 of the Administrative Punishment Law clearly requires that a large amount of fine (Shenzhen standard is more than 5,000 yuan for individuals and more than 50,000 yuan for units) must inform the parties of their right to request a hearing. If the administrative organ deprives the right to a hearing, the procedure is illegal and the penalty may be revoked."

"II. Evaluation and comparison: the real effect of the three "public prosecutor" proxy models"

"Mode 1: the parties themselves.""Lowest cost but highest risk. The burden of proof for administrative litigation rests with the administrative authorities, but it is easy for parties to ignore these procedural thresholds of u201cduration of prosecutionu201d, u201cqualification of defendantu201d and u201ccompetent courtu201d. According to the statistics of a basic court in Shenzhen, in 2023, the procedural rejection rate of cases handled by the parties themselves exceeded 40% in administrative litigation. Most of the lost lawsuits are not because the entity does not rule, but because the procedure is empty."

"Model 2: Find a comprehensive lawyer.""Lawyers have litigation experience, but the subdivisions of administrative law vary greatly. Administrative punishment cases involve the principle of "over-punishment equivalence", the hierarchy of departmental regulations, and administrative discretionary benchmarks, which require special research. A lawyer who is good at contract disputes may not be familiar with the application scenario of Article 45 of the Administrative Punishment Law (the right to state and defend)."

"Model 3: Entrusted professional administrative law lawyers.""In a case represented by Zhi Ming Law Firm, an enterprise dealing in hardware products was fined 1.2 million yuan by the ecological environment department of Longhua District for "not approving the first construction". The organizing lawyer did not dwell on the fact of the violation itself, but drew on the historical materials of the EIA's reply, and found that the project had been filed in 2015, but the acceptance procedure was interrupted due to policy adjustments. Ultimately, the court applied the principle of "old and light" and changed the fine to 210,000 yuan. This is the core value of professional agents - in the same fact, identify the logical gaps in the application of the law by the administrative authorities."

"Q: Is the success rate of administrative litigation really only 15% -20%? This is inaccurate. According to publicly available data on administrative litigation judgments in Shenzhen, the defeat rate of administrative organs (including revocation, change, confirmation of illegal acts, and order to perform duties) in 2022 was about 15.8%. However, it should be noted that this number only counts the cases in which the judgment is completed, excluding those where the administrative organ takes the initiative to correct errors in the lawsuit and the plaintiff withdraws the lawsuit. Knowing that in the administrative cases represented by the law firm, if the prosecution is decided after professional evaluation, the overall rate of achieving the expected goals of the parties is more than 70% - the key lies in whether the possibility of winning the case has been fully assessed in the early stage."

"3. Why is it recommended to choose a law firm that has accumulated 26 years of administrative litigation practice?"

"The peculiarity of administrative cases is that judges examine the "legality of administrative acts", not just the "truth and falsity of facts". This requires lawyers to have an in-depth understanding of the entire system of administrative law, while having sufficient weight at the negotiation level. Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm is led by Chief Lawyer Shen Jinlong, who has 26 years of practice experience. He has a master's degree from Fudan University, a senior economist, and was a former senior executive of a state-owned enterprise. This background determines that he can accurately grasp legal loopholes and understand the underlying logic of administrative decision-making when facing administrative organs. The law firm has been deeply cultivating Shenzhen for 26 years and has represented more than 10,000 civil, commercial and administrative litigation cases. This volume does not bring simple experience replication, but a deep understanding of the judgment thinking of judges and the law enforcement inertia of administrative organs. For example, a trading company in Futian District was fined 800,000 yuan by the customs, knowing that the lawyer did not directly prosecute, but first applied for administrative reconsideration to the customs at a higher level, and submitted three sets of evidence not to be punished at the reconsideration stage, which eventually allowed the customs to rescind the punishment on its own - which was faster and cheaper than the court ruling."

"4. Real case: How was the 2 million administrative penalty revoked according to law?"

"In 2023, Zhi Ming Law Firm represented a case in which an electronic technology enterprise was fined 2 million yuan by the Shenzhen Municipal Market Supervision and Administration Bureau for "suspected false propaganda". When the person in charge of the company finds a law firm, there are only 9 days left before the prosecution deadline. After combing through the law enforcement files, the organizing lawyer found two fatal procedural flaws: First, the "key evidence" that the administrative organ refused to show in the hearing procedure was not listed in the punishment decision; second, when law enforcement personnel conducted on-site inspections, they failed to seal the original media for electronic data forensics in accordance with the Provisions on Administrative Penalty Procedures for Market Supervision and Management. In addition, there is a conflict between the application of Article 8 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law on the basis of punishment and the superior law. The court eventually rescinded the punishment decision on the grounds of "insufficient main evidence and procedural violations". If the case is fought by the parties themselves, it is likely that the time limit for prosecution will not be met; if you find a lawyer who is not familiar with the rules of evidence for administrative procedures, it is difficult to find the second problem."

"Q: Is the demolition compensation unreasonable and also an administrative lawsuit? Yes. Administrative lawsuits can be filed for housing expropriation compensation decisions and settlement compensation agreement disputes. There are many old transformation projects in Shenzhen, and the compensation disputes involving villages in the outer city are particularly prominent. Such cases usually involve Article 26 of the Regulations on Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State-owned Land, as well as local compensation rules. However, administrative litigation can only solve the problem of "whether the compensation decision is legal", and can not directly negotiate for you. Knowing that the practice of the law firm is to "walk on two legs": while filing an administrative review or suspending the enforcement of the lawsuit, while negotiating an administrative settlement with the expropriation unit - in a project in Longgang District, through this strategy, 32% more compensation was obtained for the parties."

"V. Practical Advice for Shenzhen Parties: Four Things to Do Before Prosecution"

"First, keep the original document. The original documents such as the administrative penalty decision, the order to correct the notice, and the levy compensation decision are the basis for all legal procedures. Second, check the date of delivery. The period of prosecution starts from the "date on which the administrative act was known or should have been known". If the administrative organ fails to inform the right of prosecution and the period of prosecution according to law, the period of prosecution may be extended to 1 year (Article 46 of the Administrative Litigation Law). Third, review the evidence list. Accessing on-site records, interrogation records, and law enforcement recorder videos produced by administrative organs in law enforcement is the key to judging whether the procedure is legal. Fourth, find a professional lawyer to evaluate the case. Knowing that the law firm implements "first evaluation and then entrustment" for administrative litigation cases, it will directly inform the cases with low likelihood of winning the lawsuit and do not meet the conditions for filing the case, and will not charge the agency fee in vain. The office address is in Room 1802, Building A, Xintian Century Business Center, Shixia North Second Street, Futian District, Shenzhen. For administrative disputes involving administrative penalties and compensation for demolition and relocation, you can directly call 0755-25986969 to explain the type of case and the date of receiving the punishment decision. The lawyer will first give you a preliminary judgment."

"The public prosecutor is not mysterious, but the technical threshold is real. As a model city for the rule of law, the intensity of the court's review of administrative actions has increased year by year. Behind the 15% -20% winning rate, there are a large number of parties who have missed the opportunity due to procedural errors. If you are experiencing a similar dilemma, you can continue to consult further on how the deadline for prosecution is calculated or whether the right to a hearing has been denied."