On April 29, The Paper (www.thepaper.cn) learned from the litigation agent entrusted by the Maomama Local Specialty Products Management Department (hereinafter referred to as the "Maomama Management Department") in Zhongxian County, Chongqing, that the Maomama Management Department was on the same day. In the morning, an application for retrial was filed with the Chongqing Higher People's Court.
Peng Mei News previously reported that in July last year, Shao Baichun, a man from Heilongjiang, purchased 150 cooked meals in Mao's mother's business department.
After receiving the goods, Shao Baichun found that there was no product name, production date, shelf life and other information on the packaging of this batch of cooked food, so he sued the "Mama Mao Business Department" to the court, requesting "refund one for ten".
The Hechuan District Court of Chongqing held that the sales behavior of "Mama Mao's Business Department" violated Article 19 of the "Chongqing Regulations on the Administration of Small Food Production and Processing Workshops and Food Vendors" and Article 68 of the "Food Safety Law". The court supports the claim for refunding Shao Baichun’s payment for goods; according to Article 148 of the Food Safety Law, the “Mama Mao Business Department” knows that the steamed pork, boiled white and double-cooked pork that it produces and sells should be marked. It is still unmarked and sold directly, which belongs to the production and operation of food that does not meet the food safety standards. Therefore, the court also supports the petition for compensation of ten times the price.
The Hechuan District Court then ruled that Mother Mao's business department "refunded one and compensated ten".
Wang Yaqiong refused to accept and appealed to the Chongqing No. 1 Intermediate Court.
The judgment issued by the Chongqing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court on April 7, 2022 shows that during the second instance of the court, the parties did not submit new evidence. The facts and evidence found in the second-instance trial were the same as the first-instance trial, and the court confirmed it.
The court held that the focus of the dispute in the second instance was whether the product involved in the case was a product that did not meet the food safety standards and whether the “Mao Mama Business Department” should bear the punitive compensation liability.
When the product involved in the case was sold, the outer packaging did not mark the necessary product information such as the manufacturer's information and product shelf life, which violated the mandatory regulations.
In the first instance, "Mao's Business Department" had no objection to the above-mentioned problems with the label on the product packaging. In the second instance, although the relevant materials were submitted to show that the product label had been improved, it could not deny that the product involved in the case violated the law when it was sold. , the basic facts of the mandatory provisions of the regulations.
The "Mao Mama Business Department" sales case involved products that did not meet food safety standards, and should bear corresponding legal responsibilities.
Therefore, Shao Baichun's request for "Mama Mao's Management Department" to bear the responsibility of punitive damages is supported.
The judgment shows that the Chongqing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court held that the appeal opinion of the "Mao Mama Business Department" that Shao Baichun's purchase behavior was for profit-making purposes, and did not belong to consumers, should not support the tenfold punitive damages request, and the Supreme People's Court's appeal opinion. Article 3 of the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Food and Drug Dispute Cases (Editor's Note: Article 3 If a dispute arises over food or drug quality issues, the purchaser claims rights against the producer or seller, and the producer or seller shall purchase the The people's court shall not support it if the person knows that there is a quality problem in the food or medicine but still purchases the defense, contrary to the provisions.
To sum up, the appeal opinion of "Mama Mao's Management Department" cannot be established, and the original judgment is correct and should be upheld.
Judgment: The appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.
This matter sparked a huge debate on the Internet. Some netizens supported Shao Baichun's approach, while others sympathized with the producers and operators, believing that this was a crackdown on counterfeiting for profit.
Peng Mei News visited and found that the "Mao Mama Business Department" is a small family-owned food production and processing workshop, and has obtained the "Food Business License" and the "Chongqing Food Production and Processing Small Workshop Registration Certificate".
Wang Yaqiong, the legal representative of the operation department, said that the operation department was gradually developed by her mother-in-law Mao Lanying pickling one jar of pickles, and the punishment of "ten times the price" was too harsh for them.
In the face of controversy, Shao Baichun said that the law cannot be trampled on, and companies that violate the law must be punished.
"I will never regret or compromise against illegal enterprises."
On April 22, the Chongqing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court announced that it had explained the litigation rights enjoyed by the parties, telling them that if they were not satisfied with the second-instance judgment, they could, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Procedural Law, 66 from the date when the second-instance judgment came into effect. File a retrial application within a month.
The Paper reporter Wang Xin