If the hottest package does not meet the standard,

2022-08-26
  • Detail

If the packaging does not meet the standard, it must also be compensated ten times

release date: Source: Internet editor: lychee browsing times: 11893 copyright and disclaimer

core tip: Recently, the Fangshan District People's Court of Beijing held a briefing on "typical cases in the first anniversary of the implementation of the food Safety Law". It is reported that from October 2015 to September 2016, the Fangshan District People's court accepted 23 cases involving disputes over the rights and interests of food consumers. All 23 plaintiffs were professional dummies, and all demanded ten times the compensation from the producers and operators. In the lawsuit, professional counterfeiters did not claim for compensation for the quality problems of the products themselves, but mostly claimed ten times the compensation for the reason that the packaging of the goods did not meet the national standards. At the briefing, the Fangshan District People's court also notified a number of typical cases

[China Packaging News] recently, the Fangshan District People's Court of Beijing held a briefing on "typical cases in the first anniversary of the implementation of the food safety law". It is reported that from October 2015 to September 2016, the Fangshan District People's court accepted 23 cases involving disputes over the rights and interests of food consumers. All 23 plaintiffs were professional dummies, and all demanded ten times the compensation from the producers and operators. In the lawsuit, professional counterfeiters did not claim for compensation for the quality problems of the products themselves, but mostly claimed ten times the compensation for the reason that the packaging of the goods did not meet the national standards. At the briefing, the Fangshan District People's court also notified a number of typical cases

According to Fangshan District People's court, from October 2015 to early September 2016, the second court of civil trial of Fangshan District People's court accepted 23 cases involving disputes over the rights and interests of food consumers, including 3 cases under trial and 20 cases concluded. In terms of the way of settlement, the settlement rate of judgment is 34.8%, and the settlement rate of mediation and withdrawal is 65.2% From the perspective of the subject of litigation, there were 23 cases involving professional crackdown on counterfeit goods, accounting for 100%. The defendants in cases involving the rights and interests of food consumers were all large shopping malls, supermarkets and stores within the jurisdiction of Fangshan District People's court. From the perspective of the reasons for consumers' prosecution, the number of cases prosecuted on the grounds that the packaging and labeling of goods did not meet national standards was 22, accounting for 95.7%; The number of cases prosecuted for commodity quality problems was 1, accounting for 4.3% From the perspective of the way in which consumers ask producers and operators to pay compensation, the number of cases requiring producers and operators to pay ten times compensation is 23, accounting for 100%

in food consumption cases, cases involving professional beating dummies have formed a corresponding pattern. Article 3 of the provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the application of law in the trial of food and drug dispute cases implemented in 2014 stipulates that in the field of food and drugs, professional counterfeiters can claim rights, and consumer identity is no longer a restriction on claiming rights

the judge found that professional beating dummies are different from ordinary consumers. They have quite professional industry knowledge. They not only Sue physical stores, but also "buy fake" people. After purchasing the commodities involved in the case, professional crackdowns should first report to the administrative law enforcement department. After the administrative law enforcement department makes the handling result, the professional crackdown on counterfeit goods will use the handling result to negotiate compensation with the business. If the negotiation fails, the professional crackdown on counterfeit goods will take this as a factual basis or evidence to file a civil lawsuit for compensation

Facing the new situation, Fangshan District People's court aims to protect the rights and interests of consumers, maintain market order and achieve food safety. On the basis of ascertaining the facts, it handles cases fairly, strengthens contacts with consumer organizations, industrial and commercial departments and people's mediation committees, actively resolves disputes involving food consumers' rights protection, and improves the quality and efficiency of trials; Send a judicial suggestion letter to the shopping malls and associations involved, put forward suggestions on the problems found in the trial of the case, improve their awareness of the rule of law, and help them regulate their production and sales behavior

● typical case

determination of "knowing well" of operators

in October 2015, after purchasing vacuum packaged food in a shopping mall, Li found that the food violated the 9-month shelf-life provisions of the hygienic standard for fresh and frozen animal derived aquatic products, marked the shelf-life of the damaged layer as 12 months, and sued the court for the return of goods from the shopping mall and compensation of 10 times the price. The mall argued that it had fulfilled its obligation of strict examination and should not bear the relevant laws. In the court trial, the mall did not provide evidence to prove that it had fulfilled its obligation of strict examination. The court ruled that the mall would return the price of the goods and pay Li ten times the compensation

[judge's interpretation]

one of the focuses of this case is whether the operator has fulfilled its legal obligations. 7. The product quality law stipulates that the seller should establish and implement the incoming inspection and acceptance system to verify the product certificate of conformity and other marks. The food involved in this case does not meet the national mandatory standards and belongs to the food that does not meet the food safety standards

focus on ordnance and environmental protection stocks (Pengqi technology, Wanze shares, BaoTi shares, Western materials, etc.). The second focus of this case is whether the operator bears punitive damages. In this case, the operator failed to fulfill the statutory duty of examination, and there was a subjective fault in violating the statutory duty. He should have known that the food was wrongly marked during storage, but he did not examine it and sold it. This belongs to the category of "knowing well" by the operator, and the wrong marking during food storage endangers food safety and misleads consumers, which conforms to the elements of the punitive compensation provisions of the food safety law, and should bear punitive compensation to consumers

ten times compensation can also be claimed if there is no loss.

in October 2015, Liu bought 7 boxes of chocolate biscuit bars of a certain brand in a supermarket, and found that the nutritional content and content of the purchased chocolate in Chinese and English did not correspond. Liu did not eat the chocolate involved and reported it to the food and drug administration. The food and Drug Administration issued a written decision on administrative punishment, imposing administrative punishment on supermarkets that are difficult to easily replace China's position in these markets in order to confiscate illegal gains and impose fines. After receiving the reply from the food and drug administration, Liu negotiated the compensation with the supermarket, but failed to reach an agreement. He filed a lawsuit to the court and requested the supermarket to refund and compensate ten times the price. The court held that the nutritional composition of the food sold by the defendant was inconsistent between Chinese and English, which violated the mandatory standard of the general principles of labelling, and supported Liu's claim

[judge's interpretation]

in the field of food consumption, if consumers buy food that does not meet the food safety standards and do not eat the goods involved, that is, they have not suffered actual losses or long-term and potential damage, consumers can also claim punitive compensation ten times the price from the operator

in November 2015, Li bought a brand of bulk chocolate in a supermarket and found that the outer package of the food was not marked with the production date. Li believed that the commodity involved did not meet the food safety standards and was not eaten, so he complained to the food and drug administration. In January this year, the food and Drug Administration sent a reply to Li, determined that the food involved did not meet the food safety standards, and made a punishment decision on the supermarket involved. After receiving the reply, Mr. Li failed to negotiate with the supermarket and sued the court, demanding that the supermarket return the goods and compensate ten times the price. The court held that the goods involved in the case violated the food safety law and belonged to the food that did not meet the food safety standards. The defendant supermarket did not provide evidence to prove that the production date was marked on the outer package of the food involved, showed the certificate of conformity to the plaintiff Li, and prompted the production date. It failed to fulfill its legal obligations and should bear the return of goods and compensation ten times the price to Li

[judge interpretation]

food safety standards and food safety should not be recognized equally. The food safety law stipulates that food safety refers to that food is non-toxic and harmless, meets the required nutritional requirements, and does not cause any acute, subacute or chronic harm to human health. However, food safety standards are not clearly stipulated in Chinese laws

in this case, the bulk food involved in the case was not marked with the production date, which violated the provisions of the food safety law. This omission of labels will cause consumers to be unable to judge the shelf life and eat products safely within the shelf life, which will cause potential harm to consumers and endanger food safety. To sum up, the defendant supermarket should bear the return and compensation ten times the price

identification of "misleading" labels and instructions

in October 2015, Mr. Tang bought 10 bottles of imported wine in a supermarket and found that the wine involved did not contain Chinese labels, Chinese names, ingredient lists, storage conditions, food addition information, country names or place names of origin, so he did not drink wine and reported it to the food and drug administration. In October 2015, after the food and Drug Administration imposed an administrative penalty on the supermarket, Mr. Tang failed to negotiate with the supermarket and filed a lawsuit for ten times the compensation. After hearing the case, the court found that the goods involved had misled consumers and ordered the supermarket to pay ten times the compensation

[judge's interpretation]

in this case, the missing label of the commodity involved in the case violates the food safety law and the general principles for the labeling of prepackaged food. It is a food that does not meet the food safety standards, and the missing label obviously misleads consumers, so the operator's punitive compensation cannot be excluded

Copyright © 2011 JIN SHI