Since the beginning of this year, the provincial market supervision departments have conscientiously implemented the policies and measures such as”40 policies of the Soviet Union”,”22 policies of the Soviet Union government office” and 12 policies and measures of the Provincial Bureau to help enterprises rescue, stabilize and strengthen the chain of enterprises, and compared with the requirements of the”provisions of Jiangsu Province on no punishment and lighter punishment for minor violations in the field of market supervision”, combined with economic development and epidemic prevention and control situation, adhered to the principle of combining overall supervision and regulation with support for development, and Violations of laws and regulations with minor harmful consequences shall not be punished or mitigated according to law. In order to further optimize the rule of law business environment and support the healthy development of market players, we hereby announce typical cases of minor violations in the field of market regulation that are exempted from punishment. The cases involving food are as follows:
Case 3:a tea factory in Sheyang County, Yancheng city produced and sold pre packaged food whose labels did not meet the provisions of food safety standards
On February 24, 2022, the market supervision bureau of Sheyang County, in accordance with the notice on transferring consumer complaints and reports, issued a notice on the transfer of Sheyang tea produced by a tea factory in Sheyang County®It is suspected that the product standard of fetal chrysanthemum tea is illegal to carry out law enforcement inspection. After investigation, the enterprise standard q/dmjh0001s-2017″alternative tea series” formulated by the parties was issued on May 25, 2017 and implemented on June 25, 2017. In September, 2018, the parties revised the above standards. The revised product implementation standard is”q/dmjh0001s-2018″. Compared with the original standard, the requirements for raw and auxiliary materials of”Chrysanthemum” have not changed. After the implementation of the product implementation standard”q/dmjh0001s-2018″ formulated by the party concerned, because 1120 pre-made packaging boxes marked with”q/dmjh0001s-2017″ have not been used, the above packaging boxes will continue to be used for shooting®Production and packaging of foetus chrysanthemum tea. As of the on-site inspection, the parties involved used the above packaging boxes to produce sheming ® 700 boxes of chrysanthemum products. Under the persuasion and education of law enforcement officers, the parties immediately recalled the illegal fetal chrysanthemum tea and reprinted sheming®The label of foetus chrysanthemum tea is not suitable for the unsold sheming tea®The labels on foetus chrysanthemum tea and unused packaging boxes have been rectified.
The behavior of the party concerned violates the relevant provisions on the label of prepackaged food and shall be subject to administrative punishment. Considering the sheming produced and sold by the parties®The quality of fetal chrysanthemum tea products has been tested as qualified products, and the replaced executive standards marked on the product labels have not had a substantial impact on food safety. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 28 and paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the administrative punishment law, it is decided to be exempted from punishment.
Case 6:a company selling unqualified products in Zhangjiagang Free Trade Zone
In December 2021, the market supervision bureau of Zhangjiagang Free Trade Zone carried out law enforcement inspection on a company suspected of selling unqualified products according to the handover clues. After investigation, Houcheng old wine (production date:March 21, 2020, specification and model:400ml/bag, alcohol content:13%vol.) produced by the party and sold by a Department Store Supermarket Co., Ltd. in Yangzhou was tested by Yangzhou product quality supervision and Inspection Institute. The alcohol content item did not meet the quality requirements of gb/t 13662-2018 yellow rice wine and the product express quality requirements, and the inspection conclusion was unqualified. As the unqualified products have been sold, the law enforcement personnel entrusted the Zhangjiagang customs comprehensive technology center to conduct a sampling inspection of Houcheng old wine in the party’s warehouse, and the Houcheng old wine with production dates of March 21, 2020, November 10, 2021, November 16, 2021 and November 17, 2021 were sampled on site. After sampling inspection, the alcohol content of the four batches of Houcheng old wine sampled met the requirements of yellow rice wine (gb/t 13662-2018).
The yellow rice wine produced by the party concerned fails to pass the sampling inspection, which violates the relevant provisions of the product quality law, and shall be subject to administrative punishment. In view of the fact that many batches of products were tested on site to meet the quality standards, and the parties concerned quickly contacted the dealers in relevant regions to formulate a recall plan for unqualified products, it was decided not to impose administrative punishment.
Case 7:a supermarket in Huai’an Economic and Technological Development Zone operated food that did not meet food safety standards
On December 27, 2021, the market supervision bureau of Huai’an Economic Development Zone investigated the case of a supermarket operating food that did not meet food safety standards according to the unqualified report of the municipal supervision and random inspection. After investigation, the”thiamethoxam sweet” item in ginger and”acetamiprid sweet” item in small green vegetables sold by the party concerned did not meet the requirements of gb2763-2021 national food safety standard maximum residue limit of pesticides in food, and the inspection conclusion was unqualified. The above unqualified products were purchased from an agricultural development Co., Ltd. in Huai’an City on December 9, 2021. The party concerned obtained the supplier’s business license and e-ticket, and provided the purchase inspection records of this batch of ginger and small green vegetables. As of the day of inspection, all ginger and small vegetables in the same batch have been sold. Ginger and small vegetables belong to fresh agricultural products, and recall measures cannot be taken because they have been sold for a long time.
The behavior of the party concerned violates the provisions of item 2 of Article 25 of the measures for the supervision and administration of the quality and safety of edible agricultural products sold on the market, and shall be subject to administrative punishment. In view of the fact that it has provided the business license and e-ticket of the supplier, provided the purchase inspection records, and fulfilled the purchase inspection and other obligations of edible agricultural products, there is sufficient evidence to prove that it did not know that the purchased edible agricultural products did not meet the food safety standards, it is exempted from punishment in accordance with Article 54 of the measures for the supervision and administration of the quality and safety of edible agricultural products sold in the market.
Case 8:Persimmon case of labeling problems in a supermarket in Dantu District, Zhenjiang City
On December 10, 2021, according to the report, the market supervision bureau of Dantu District, Zhenjiang city carried out law enforcement inspection on the suspected illegal packaging of persimmons (production date:October 14, 2021) operated by a supermarket. After investigation, the persimmon is marked with the executive standard:dbs45-016. According to the announcement of the health commission of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (No. 3 in 2021), this standard was abolished on March 15, 2021. Upon investigation, on November 2, 2021, the party concerned purchased 34 bags of persimmons from a Food Co., Ltd. in Pingle County, with a total purchase price of 80 yuan (unit price of 2.3 yuan/bag). The selling price is 3.5 yuan/bag. As of the on-site inspection by law enforcement officers, all the persimmons in this batch have been sold. The total value of the above batches of persimmons is 119 yuan, and the illegal income is 39 yuan. During the on-site inspection, the party concerned provided the purchase documents of the above-mentioned persimmons, the qualification certification materials of the supplier and the test report.
The behavior of the party concerned violates the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 71 of the food safety law and shall be subject to administrative punishment. Whereas the party concerned provided the purchase documents of the above-mentioned persimmons, the qualification certificates of the supplier and the inspection report, and fulfilled the obligations of purchase inspection. The party concerned has sufficient evidence to prove that he did not know that the label of the purchased persimmon does not meet the food safety standards, and can truthfully explain the source of his purchase, which conforms to the situation described in Article 136 of the food safety law. According to Article 136 of the food safety law, he decided not to impose administrative punishment.
Case 9:a restaurant in Jianye District, Nanjing issued illegal advertisements
On September 3, 2021, after receiving a public report, the law enforcement officers of the market supervision bureau of Jianye District, Nanjing carried out law enforcement inspection on a restaurant suspected of publishing illegal advertisements. After investigation, the restaurant has the words”good nutrition and taste, great market potential, and the broadest customer base…” in the”brand story” of the store business section of its meituan takeout platform.
The party concerned has violated the provisions of Article 9 of the advertising law by using the”highest level” advertising language, and shall be subject to administrative punishment. In view of the fact that he voluntarily withdrew the illegal propaganda language, and the illegal act was minor and did not cause harmful consequences, according to the provisions of Article 33 of the administrative punishment law, it was decided not to impose administrative punishment.
Contributed by:Law Enforcement Inspection Bureau and regulation department