[2] Altering dates and ignoring food safety, refusing punishment and suing government departments

[3] Compiled from: Supreme People's Court, People's Court News Media Center
 
Case review
 
[4] 1. Tampering with food dates investigated, lawsuit filed against penalty
 
The Songjiang District Market Supervision Bureau received a public report alleging that Yihe Company had tampered with product production dates.

 
 

On August 7, 2019, law enforcement officers verified on-site that Yihe Company had altered product production dates. In the company's outer packaging room, officers found employees using cloths and inkjet printer cleaner to wipe off the production date labels on cheese smoked sausages, changing "2019/4/17" to "2019/08/07A1," with the font and font size being identical.
 
[1] Upon investigation, Yihe Company tampered with the production dates of 1,487 packs of cheese-smoked sausages, 3,757 packs of German-style classic fried sausages, 441 packs of German-style Thuringian fried sausages, and 698 packs of German-style Nuremberg fried sausages, with a total value of 177,081.56 yuan. By the time the case was discovered, Yihe Company had sold 54 packs of German-style classic fried sausages with altered production dates. After the case was uncovered, all products in this batch were fully recalled.
 
[2] On June 28, 2020, the Songjiang District Market Supervision Administration issued an administrative penalty decision against Yihe Company, determining that the company had altered the production dates of food products nearing or past their expiration dates, constituting an illegal act of producing and selling food with false production dates. In addition to ordering Yihe Company to rectify its illegal conduct, penalties included revoking its food production license, imposing a fine of 301 yuan, and confiscating the illegally produced products involved, as well as the tools and equipment used in the illegal production.

 
 

[3] Dissatisfied with the penalty, Yihe Company applied for administrative reconsideration to the Songjiang District Government. On October 30, 2020, the Songjiang District Government issued a reconsideration decision upholding the administrative penalty. Still dissatisfied, Yihe Company filed a lawsuit with the Minhang Court.
 
[4] 2. The plaintiff alleges: No harmful consequences were caused, so it does not meet the circumstances for a heavier penalty.
 
The plaintiff argues that it actively cooperated with the Songjiang District Market Supervision Bureau's investigation, voluntarily provided relevant documents such as production records, product packaging specifications, and sales orders, proactively recalled the involved products distributed to dealers, had no illegal gains, and caused no harmful consequences, thus not meeting the statutory circumstances for heavier punishment. The Songjiang District Market Supervision Bureau failed to fully apply the relevant regulations and opinions on administrative penalty discretion in China and Shanghai, imposing a fine over 17 times the value of the goods and revoking the food production license, which constitutes an error in legal application and an obviously improper penalty. Therefore, the plaintiff requests the revocation of the administrative penalty decision made by the Songjiang District Market Supervision Bureau and the administrative reconsideration decision made by the Songjiang District Government.
 
3. The defendant argues: The harm is significant, the subjective intent is clear, and the penalty is proportionate to the offense.
 
The plaintiff constitutes the illegal act of producing and operating food with falsely labeled production dates. Given that the involved products fall within the high-risk food category, some have exceeded their shelf life, the value of the goods amounts to 177,081.56 yuan, and the plaintiff clearly had subjective intent in tampering with production dates to extend product shelf life. The Songjiang District Market Supervision Administration, after comprehensively considering the severity of the plaintiff's actions and the specific circumstances of the case, made the administrative penalty decision in question. The facts are clear, the evidence is sufficient and reliable, and the application of the law is correct. Additionally, the entity making the administrative penalty decision is qualified, and the enforcement procedures are lawful. Therefore, the request is to reject the plaintiff's lawsuit according to law.

 
 

Relevant Laws
[1] Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China
[2] Article 34The following foods, food additives, and food-related products are prohibited from production and operation:
(10) Food and food additives with false production dates, shelf life, or that have exceeded their shelf life;
 
Article 124In violation of this law, under any of the following circumstances that do not constitute a crime, the food safety supervision and administration department of the people's government at or above the county level shall confiscate the illegal gains and the illegally produced and operated food and food additives, and may also confiscate tools, equipment, raw materials, and other items used for illegal production and operation; if the value of the illegally produced and operated food and food additives is less than 10,000 yuan, a fine of not less than 50,000 yuan but not more than 100,000 yuan shall be imposed; if the value is 10,000 yuan or more, a fine of not less than ten times but not more than twenty times the value of the goods shall be imposed; if the circumstances are serious, the license shall be revoked:
(5) Producing and operating food or food additives with falsely labeled production dates, shelf life, or those that have exceeded their shelf life;
 
"Administrative Penalty Law of the People's Republic of China"
Article 23Administrative penalties are under the jurisdiction of administrative organs with the power to impose administrative penalties from local people's governments at or above the county level. Where laws or administrative regulations provide otherwise, those provisions shall prevail.
 
 
[1] Court Opinion
 
The Songjiang District Government has the authority to make the appealed administrative reconsideration decision, and the appealed decision has clear facts, correct application of law, and lawful procedures, so the court rejects the plaintiff's claims in accordance with the law.
 
[1] The author's perspective
 
[1] The plaintiff, Yihe Company, altered food production dates in violation of Article 34, Item 10 of the Food Safety Law, constituting an illegal act of producing and operating food with falsely labeled production dates, with the case amount exceeding 170,000 yuan. Although Yihe Company claimed to have immediately recalled all date-altered food afterward, this was not a voluntary action but was forced after the market supervision bureau discovered the issue, and at that time, 54 packs of the involved sausages had already been sold. Facing a fine of 3.01 million yuan and the revocation of its food production license, Yihe Company still refused to accept or admit fault.
 
[2] Although these thousands of packs of problematic sausages did not cause actual harm, they posed a threat to consumer safety, equivalent to disregarding consumer health and safety. The market must never allow such food to exist. As a food company, committing such illegal acts for selfish gain, the law will not permit such a company to continue endangering society. Therefore, whether it is the fine of 3.01 million yuan or the revocation of its food production license, these are appropriate, reasonable, and lawful penalties.