The food involved in the case was a solid beverage, and the nutritional enhancer "lactoferrin" was used beyond the scope
Chongqing First and Second Instance Courts: Support professional counterfeiters to "refund one and pay ten"!
Verdict: It is better to tolerate food buyers to profit than to condone food producers and operators to break the law. It is more in line with the spirit of the legislation to identify counterfeiters as consumers.
Lactoferrin concentrate is obviously a consumer product, and the end use is of course daily consumption. From the observation of the choice of purchase location and the number of purchases, Wei Hong is suspected of pursuing profits, but the possibility of his purchase of the products involved in the case cannot be completely ruled out for daily consumption.
Even if food buyers have the motivation to pursue profits, their relative food producers and operators are the biggest beneficiaries of illegal production and operation behavior. If the illegal acts of food producers and traders are tolerated, the impact is on the legal order of food safety and national health, the consequences are extremely serious, and tolerating food buyers to pursue profits, the direct result is that food production and trading enterprises do not dare to violate the law, thereby promoting the healthy development of food production and operation, and the food consumption market is safer. From the perspective of social effects, it is better to tolerate food buyers to profit than to condone food producers and operators to violate the law. In view of this, it is more legitimate to believe that Wei Hong belongs to the consumer.
According to Article 34 of the Food Safety Law, "food that exceeds the scope and limit of the use of food additives" is a food that is prohibited from production; according to Article 124 of the Law, the penalty for producing "food that exceeds the scope and limit of the use of food additives" is "not yet a crime, and the food and drug supervision and administration department of the people's government at or above the county level shall confiscate the illegal gains and the food and food additives illegally produced and traded, and may confiscate the tools, equipment, raw materials and other items used in illegal production and operation." Where the value of food or food additives produced or traded in violation of the law is less than 10,000 yuan, a fine of between 50,000 and 100,000 yuan shall be imposed; where the value of the goods is more than 10,000 yuan, a fine of not less than 10 times but not more than 20 times the value of the goods shall be imposed; if the circumstances are serious, the license shall be revoked." It can be seen that the law has zero tolerance and severe punishment for illegal acts of food production and operation.
Therefore, the determination that Wei Hong belongs to the consumer in this case is more in line with the legislative spirit of the Food Safety Law.
Wei Hong and Sichuan Lijun Essence Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Changsheng Duxin Pharmacy in Yongchuan District, Chongqing City, a product liability dispute.
On February 28, 2019, Wei Hong went to Changsheng Duxin Pharmacy in Yongchuan District, Chongqing (hereinafter referred to as Duxin Pharmacy) to purchase 150 boxes of Lijun Essence Lactoferrin Concentrate Powder, with a price of 398 yuan per box, a total of 59,700 yuan. The products involved in the case were produced by Sichuan Lijun Essence Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Lijun Technology Company).
Each box of the products involved in the case contained 3 small boxes, and each small box contained 4 grams of 12 small bags. The production date marked on the box is February 4, 2018, the shelf life is 24 months, and the implementation standard is GB/T29602.
The product packaging box is also marked with the ingredient list and the method of consumption, of which the ingredient list is: whey protein powder, bovine colostrum freeze-dried powder, whole milk powder, thrombus sugar, edible glucose, vegetable fat powder, strawberry powder, lactoferrin powder; the consumption method is: it is recommended that children under 6 years old take 1 time a day, 1 bag each time, children over 6 years old and adults 1-2 times a day, 1 bag each time, drink with warm water or milk.
In February and March 2018, Lijun Technology Co., Ltd. conducted self-inspection and commissioned inspection of the solid beverages it produced "lactoferrin concentrate powder", and the inspection results were in line with the regulations.
Wei Hong's complaint reflected that the product did not meet food safety standards, and after investigation by the municipal supervision department, it was impossible to verify whether the production enterprise used "lactoferrin (powder)" as a nutritional enhancer in solid beverages.
He then filed a lawsuit with the Yongchuan District People's Court of Chongqing Municipality, requesting: "one refund and ten compensation", that is, 1. the second defendant was ordered to jointly refund the shopping price of 59,700 yuan; 2, the second defendant was ordered to jointly bear 10 times the payment for the goods and compensate 597,000 yuan.
First, the first instance held that the product involved in the case used the nutritional enhancer "lactoferrin" beyond the scope and did not meet food safety standards. Professional counterfeiters belong to consumers.
(1) The "lactoferrin concentrate powder" involved in the case used the nutritional enhancer "lactoferrin" beyond the scope and did not meet food safety standards.
1. The lactoferrin concentrate powder involved in the case is a solid beverage, and the label ingredient contains "lactoferrin", which violates the "Standards for the Use of Food Nutrition Enhancers" and does not meet food safety standards.
According to GB14880-2012 "Standards for the Use of Food Nutrition Enhancers", lactoferrin is classified as a nutritional enhancer and included in the management of this standard.
According to this standard, the types of foods that are allowed to add "lactoferrin" do not include solid beverages, and the nutritional enhancers that are allowed to be added to solid beverages do not include lactoferrin.
The lactoferrin concentrate produced by Lijun Technology Co., Ltd. is a solid beverage, and the ingredients labeled therein contain lactoferrin, which violates the provisions of GB14880-2012 "Standards for the Use of Food Nutrition Enhancers" on the scope of lactoferrin addition.
Food safety standards are mandatory standards, food safety standards include the variety, scope of use, dosage of food additives, and food additives include nutritional enhancers.
The product involved in the case violates the provisions of GB14880-2012 "Standards for the Use of Food Nutrition Enhancers" on the scope of use of lactoferrin, and shall be judged to be foods that do not meet national food safety standards.
2. GB/T29602 cannot be used as the basis for adding "lactoferrin" to the products involved in the case.
GB/T29602 "Solid Beverage" national standard does not stipulate that lactoferrin can be added to solid beverages, and generally stipulates that "food safety requirements should comply with relevant national food safety standards", so this standard cannot be used as the basis for adding lactoferrin to the products involved in the case.
3. Lijun Technology Company presented unfavorable evidence.
From March 27, 2018 to April 11, 2018, the National Light Industry Food Quality Supervision and Inspection Chengdu Station conducted a conclusion on the sensory, moisture, milk protein content, lead, total number of colonies, coliform, mold, salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus and other items produced by Lijun Technology Co., Ltd., which were only the conclusions made on the tested items, and the test items did not include the lactoferrin content.
Therefore, the conclusion can not prove that the lactoferrin concentrate produced by Lijun Technology Co., Ltd. fully complies with the gb/T29602 "solid beverage" national standard, nor can it prove that the testing agency allows the product to add lactoferrin.
Therefore, the claim that Lijun Technology Company and Duxin Pharmacy used this as a basis to prove that the products involved in the case met the national food safety standards could not be established.
(2) It is better to tolerate food buyers to make profits than to condone food producers and operators to violate the law. It is more in line with the spirit of the legislation to identify counterfeiters as consumers.
In summary, the addition of a nutritional enhancer lactoferrin to the product involved in the case violated food safety standards; Wei Hong, as a consumer, requested that the product manufacturer Lijun Technology Co., Ltd. refund the price and compensate ten times the price, which was based on law, and this court supported it.
It is believed that pharmacies are exempt from liability for not being aware that the products involved in the case do not meet food safety standards.
The People's Court of Yongchuan District of Chongqing Municipality rendered the (2019) Yu 0118 Min Chu No. 3560 Civil Judgment, and the first-instance judgment was made: "one refund and ten compensation", that is, Lijun Technology Company refunded Wei Hong's price of 59,700 yuan and compensated Wei Hong 597,000 yuan.
Lijun Technology Co., Ltd. appealed to the Chongqing Fifth Intermediate Court against the first-instance judgment.
Second, the second instance held that the food involved in the case exceeded the scope of adding "lactoferrin", and the producer should bear ten times the compensation liability for this; "knowing the fake and buying the fake" has the right to claim ten times the punitive damages. The appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.
1. The food involved in the case is added to the "lactoferrin" beyond the scope, and the producer shall bear ten times the liability for compensation.
The court of second instance held that in this case, the appellee Wei Hong purchased the Lijun Essence Lactoferrin Concentrate Powder sold by the Appellee Firmly Believe Pharmacy, and the packaging of the product indicated that the producer was the appellant Lijun Technology Company, and the dosage table contained lactoferrin powder, and the product type was a solid beverage.
According to the provisions of GB14880-2012 "National Standard for Food Safety Food Nutrition Enhancer Use Standard", the type of food that can be added with lactoferrin is only modulated milk, flavored fermented milk, and milk-containing beverages, while the food type involved in the case is a solid beverage, which does not belong to the list of types of foods that can be added with lactoferrin, so the food involved in the case has been added beyond the scope of lactoferrin, which violates the national food safety standards for the use of food nutrition enhancers, and the producer Lijun Technology Company should bear ten times the compensation liability for this.
2. "Knowing the fake and buying the fake" has the right to claim ten times the punitive damages.
Although Wei Hong's one-time purchase of the food involved in the case is suspected of being aimed at claiming profits, it cannot be denied that his identity as a consumer is not denied, wei Hong found that the food did not meet the food safety standards after consuming and purchasing the food involved in the case, and he has the right to require the producer Lijun Technology Company to bear ten times the punitive damages according to the law.
Lijun Technology Company claimed that the food involved in the case was commissioned by Feng Yulong, an outsider in the case, and that its reason for not being a producer was inconsistent with the facts ascertained, and this court did not accept it.
In summary, Lijun Technology's appeal request cannot be established and should be rejected; the first-instance judgment found that the facts were clear and the applicable law was correct and should be upheld.
On April 1, 2020, the Fifth Intermediate People's Court of Chongqing Municipality rendered the (2020) Yu 05 Min Zhong No. 13 Civil Judgment, and the second-instance judgment was as follows: the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.
Attached: Chongqing Fifth Intermediate People's Court (2020) Yu 05 Min Zhong No. 13 Civil Judgment
(Two Red Contributors)
The Fifth Intermediate People's Court of Chongqing Municipality
Civil judgments
(2020) Yu 05 Min Zhong No. 13
Appellant (defendant in the original trial): Sichuan Lijun Essence Biotechnology Co., Ltd., domiciled in Building 3, No. 188, Section 3, Sanya Road, Guanghan City, Deyang City, Sichuan Province, with a unified social credit code of 91510681MA62335Y4L.
Legal representative: Liu Deren, Executive Director.
Entrusted litigation agent: Liu Yuerong, lawyer of Sichuan Roadmap Law Firm.
Appellee (plaintiff in the original trial): Wei Hong, male, Han ethnicity, born on July 29, 1976, lives in Dashang Street, Longquanyi District, Chengdu.
Appellee (defendant in the original trial): Changsheng Duxin Pharmacy, Yongchuan District, Chongqing City, domicile of No. 199 Renmin Avenue, Yongchuan District, Chongqing City, Attached No. 8 and No. 9, Unified Social Credit Code 91500118MA5UBBC0XP.
Representative: Xian Shuyong, manager.
Entrusted litigation agent: Duan Tinghui, legal worker of the Legal Service Office of South Street, Yongchuan District, Chongqing.
The appellant, Sichuan Lijun Essence Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Lijun Technology Company), and the appellee Wei Hong and Changsheng Duxin Pharmacy (hereinafter referred to as Duxin Pharmacy) in Yongchuan District, Chongqing City, filed an appeal against the (2019) Yu 0118 Min Chu No. 3560 Civil Judgment of the People's Court of Yongchuan District of Chongqing Municipality. After filing the case on January 2, 2020, this court formed a collegial panel in accordance with law and held a public hearing for trial. Liu Yuerong, the appellant's entrusted litigation agent of Lijun Technology Company, Wei Hong, the appellee, and Duan Ting, the entrusted litigation agent of the appellee Duxin Pharmacy, will attend the court to participate in the litigation. The case is now closed.
Lijun Technology Company appealed: the original judgment was revoked, and wei Hong's entire litigation claims were rejected in accordance with the law; the litigation costs of the first and second instance trials in this case were borne by Wei Hong. The main reasons: Lijun Technology Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer that has obtained relevant legal production licenses and business qualifications, and the products involved in the case are in line with the national food safety standards and enterprise production standards, and in the first instance, the quality test reports of relevant institutions and the identification opinions issued by the food safety supervision department are confirmed, which confirm that the products involved in the case meet the national food safety standards; Wei Hong is a professional counterfeiter, who is motivated by the pursuit of profits, not a consumer; the products involved in the case are entrusted by others to produce and process. Lijun Technology Company is not the largest profiteer, and it is unfair to require Lijun Technology Company to bear ten times the liability for compensation. In summary, the judgment is requested to be changed in accordance with law.
Wei Hong argued that the court of first instance found that the facts were clear and the law was correct, and requested the court of second instance to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
Duxin Pharmacy reported that it requested that all of Wei Hong's claims be dismissed.
Wei Hong filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance: "1. The second defendant was ordered to jointly refund the plaintiff's shopping price of 59,700 yuan; 2. The second defendant was ordered to jointly bear 10 times the purchase price and compensate the plaintiff, that is, 597,000 yuan; 3. The litigation costs in this case should be borne by the second defendant." ”
The court of first instance found the facts: on February 28, 2019, Wei Hong went to Duxin Pharmacy to purchase 150 boxes of Lijun Essence Lactoferrin Concentrate Powder, with a price of 398 yuan per box, a total of 59,700 yuan. The product contains 3 small boxes per box, and each small box contains 4 grams of 12 small bags. The production date marked on the box is February 4, 2018, the shelf life is 24 months, and the implementation standard is GB/T29602. The product packaging box is also marked with the ingredient list and the method of consumption, of which the ingredient list is: whey protein powder, bovine colostrum freeze-dried powder, whole milk powder, thrombus sugar, edible glucose, vegetable fat powder, strawberry powder, lactoferrin powder; the consumption method is: it is recommended that children under 6 years old take 1 time a day, 1 bag each time, children over 6 years old and adults 1-2 times a day, 1 bag each time, drink with warm water or milk.
The product involved in the case was purchased by Duxin Pharmacy from Chongqing Qianghui Trading Co., Ltd. The business scope of Chongqing Qianghui Trading Co., Ltd. includes pre-packaged food, health food, etc. On August 25, 2018, Chongqing Changshengda Pharmacy Chain Co., Ltd. signed the Commodity Quality Assurance Agreement with Chongqing Qianghui Trading Co., Ltd., and Chongqing Qianghui Trading Co., Ltd. promised that the goods it provided met the relevant quality standards and relevant quality requirements of the country and the region. When duxin pharmacy purchased, Chongqing Qianghui Trading Co., Ltd. provided a solid beverage inspection report with lactoferrin concentrate powder to prove that the product complied with the national standard of GB/T29602 "solid beverage".
The products involved in the case were produced by Lijun Technology Company. On February 9, 2018, Lijun Technology Co., Ltd. conducted a self-inspection of the solid beverages it produced in accordance with GB/T29602 "Solid Beverage Standards", and the inspection results were in line with the regulations. From March 27, 2018 to April 11, 2018, the Chengdu Station of National Light Industry Food Quality Supervision and Inspection was commissioned by Lijun Technology Co., Ltd. to test the samples of lactoferrin concentrate powder produced by the company, involving sensory, moisture, milk protein content, lead, total number of colonies, coliform bacteria, mold, Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus and other items, and the test conclusion was: The product was inspected, and the tested indicators met GB/T29602 "Solid Beverage", GB7101-2015 The technical requirements specified in the National Standard beverage for food safety.
Wei Hong complained to the Mayor of Chongqing about the product involved in the case, reflecting that the product did not meet food safety standards. The Chongqing Yongchuan District Market Supervision and Administration Bureau requested the Guanghan Municipal Market Supervision and Administration Bureau to assist in the investigation of this letter. After investigation, it was impossible to verify whether the manufacturer used lactoferrin (powder) as a nutritional enhancer in solid beverages. GB14880-2012 "Standards for the Use of Food Nutrition Enhancers" was issued by the Ministry of Health on March 15, 2012 and implemented on January 1, 2013. The standard specifies the types of nutrition enhancers, food categories, and specifies the food varieties and amounts allowed to be used by various nutritional enhancers. The standard classifies lactoferrin as a nutritional enhancer and stipulates that lactoferrin is allowed for use in modulated milk, flavored fermented milk, milk-containing beverages, and infant formula. The nutritional enhancers allowed to be added to solid beverages in this standard do not contain lactoferrin. GB/T29602 The national standard for solid beverages was issued by the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China and the Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China on July 19, 2013, and was implemented from February 1, 2014. The standard stipulates the classification, index items and indicator requirements of protein solid beverages, and there are provisions on milk protein or protein content in the index requirements, and there is no provision that lactoferrin can be added. In addition, the standard 5.5 stipulates: "Food safety requirements shall comply with the relevant national food safety standards".
According to Wei Hong's account, he was an employee of the company, who lived in Shuangliu District, Chengdu, and had a family of seven people, including his father-in-law, mother-in-law, a child over one year old and a child over eight years old; and the purchase of products involved in the case was used for children and the elderly to eat, as well as to give gifts.
The court of first instance held that, based on Wei Hong's request and the statements of the two parties, the main issues in dispute between the two parties are hereby evaluated as follows:
I. Regarding whether the products involved in the case meet the national food safety standards According to gb14880-2012 "Standards for the Use of Food Nutrition Enhancers", lactoferrin is classified as a nutritional enhancer and included in the management of this standard. According to this standard, the types of foods that are allowed to add lactoferrin do not include solid beverages, and the nutritional enhancers that are allowed to be added to solid beverages do not include lactoferrin. The lactoferrin concentrate produced by Lijun Technology Co., Ltd. is a solid beverage, and the ingredients labeled therein contain lactoferrin, which violates the provisions of GB14880-2012 "Standards for the Use of Food Nutrition Enhancers" on the scope of lactoferrin addition.
Food safety standards are mandatory standards, food safety standards include the variety, scope of use, dosage of food additives, and food additives include nutritional enhancers. The product involved in the case violated the provisions of GB14880-2012 "Standards for the Use of Food Nutrition Enhancers" on the scope of use of lactoferrin, and should be judged to be food that does not meet national food safety standards.
GB/T29602 "Solid Beverage" national standard does not stipulate that lactoferrin can be added to solid beverages, and generally stipulates that "food safety requirements should comply with relevant national food safety standards", so this standard cannot be used as the basis for adding lactoferrin to the products involved in the case. From March 27, 2018 to April 11, 2018, the National Light Industry Food Quality Supervision and Inspection Chengdu Station conducted a conclusion on the sensory, moisture, milk protein content, lead, total number of colonies, coliform, mold, Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus and other items produced by Lijun Technology Co., Ltd., which were only the conclusions made of the tested items, and the test items did not include lactoferrin content, so the conclusion could not prove that the lactoferrin concentrate powder produced by Lijun Technology Company fully complied with GB/GB/. T29602 "Solid Beverage" national standard, can not prove that the testing agency allows the product to add lactoferrin. Therefore, the claim that Lijun Technology Company and Duxin Pharmacy used this as a basis to prove that the products involved in the case met the national food safety standards could not be established.
Second, the question of whether Wei Hong is a consumer
Lactoferrin concentrate is obviously a consumer product, and the end use is of course daily consumption. From the observation of the choice of purchase location and the number of purchases, Wei Hong is suspected of pursuing profits, but he cannot completely rule out the possibility that the products involved in his purchase case will be used for daily consumption.
According to Article 34 of the Food Safety Law, "food that exceeds the scope and limit of the use of food additives" is a food that is prohibited from production; according to Article 124 of the Law, the penalty for producing "food that exceeds the scope and limit of the use of food additives" is "not yet a crime, and the food and drug supervision and administration department of the people's government at or above the county level shall confiscate the illegal gains and the food and food additives illegally produced and traded, and may confiscate the tools, equipment, raw materials and other items used in illegal production and operation." Where the value of food or food additives produced or traded in violation of the law is less than 10,000 yuan, a fine of between 50,000 and 100,000 yuan shall be imposed; where the value of the goods is more than 10,000 yuan, a fine of not less than 10 times but not more than 20 times the value of the goods shall be imposed; if the circumstances are serious, the license shall be revoked." It can be seen that the law has zero tolerance and severe punishment for illegal acts of food production and operation. Therefore, the determination that Wei Hong belongs to the consumer in this case is more in line with the legislative spirit of the Food Safety Law.
2. On the question of whether the pharmacy knew that the product involved in the case did not meet the food safety standards
The product involved in the case was purchased by Duxin Pharmacy from Chongqing Qianghui Trading Co., Ltd., whose business scope includes prepackaged food and health food. Chongqing Changshengda Pharmacy Chain Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of Duxin Pharmacy, and Chongqing Qianghui Trading Co., Ltd. signed a "Commodity Quality Assurance Agreement", chongqing Qianghui Trading Co., Ltd. provided quality assurance for the products provided, including the products involved in the case; Chongqing Qianghui Trading Co., Ltd. also provided a solid beverage inspection report with lactoferrin concentrate to prove that the product was qualified; the products involved in the case were completely labeled and there were no obvious defects in appearance. Therefore, the selection of purchase channels and the inspection of related products by Firmly Believe Pharmacies meet the requirements of the Food Safety Law for food business operators.
As a food and drug operator, There are many kinds of products operated by Duxin Pharmacies, and they cannot be required to be familiar with and master the production standards, inspection methods and the scope of use of each additive of each product. As far as this case is concerned, it is difficult for the firm pharmacy to make an intuitive judgment on the deep-seated issues such as whether the nutritional enhancers of the products involved in the case are exceeding the scope. Therefore, if it is believed that the pharmacy is aware that the product involved in the case does not meet the food safety standards, it is obviously not in line with reality, and it is also an excessively high requirement.
In summary, the addition of a nutritional enhancer lactoferrin to the product involved in the case violated food safety standards; Wei Hong, as a consumer, requested that the product manufacturer Lijun Technology Co., Ltd. refund the price and compensate ten times the price, which was based on law, and this court supported it. It is believed that pharmacies are exempt from liability for not being aware that the products involved in the case do not meet food safety standards. Accordingly, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 148 of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment reads: "1. The defendant Sichuan LijunJingjing Biotechnology Co., Ltd. shall refund the plaintiff Wei Hong's price of 59,700 yuan and compensate the plaintiff Wei Hong of 597,000 yuan within 10 days after the judgment takes effect; If the obligation to pay money is not performed within the period specified in this judgment, the interest on the debt during the period of delayed performance shall be doubled in accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. The case acceptance fee of 10,360 yuan was borne by the defendant, Sichuan Lijun Essence Biotechnology Co., Ltd. ”
During the second instance trial of this court, Lijun Technology Co., Ltd. cited a copy of the "Entrusted Processing Contract" dated November 1, 2017, proving that the product involved in the case was commissioned by Feng Yulong, an outsider in the case, and Feng Yulong was the actual producer. Wei Hong's cross-examination did not recognize the authenticity, legality, and relevance of the evidence. The evidence stated by the firm pharmacy was determined by the court in accordance with the law. The Court held that Feng Yulong was not a party to this case and was not a producer with corresponding qualifications, so the above evidence submitted by Lijun Technology Company was not accepted.
This Court confirms the facts identified in the first examination.
The Court held that Article 148 of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that food that does not meet food safety standards is produced or food that is known to be food that does not meet food safety standards is handled. In addition to claiming compensation for losses, consumers may also demand compensation from producers or operators for compensation of ten times the price or three times the loss. In this case, the appellee, Wei Hong, purchased the Lijun Essence Lactoferrin Concentrate Powder sold by the Appellee Duxin Pharmacy, and the packaging of the product indicated that the producer was the appellant Lijun Technology Company, and the dosage table contained lactoferrin powder, and the product type was solid beverage. According to the provisions of GB14880-2012 "National Standard for Food Safety Food Nutrition Enhancer Use Standard", the type of food that can be added with lactoferrin is only modulated milk, flavored fermented milk, and milk-containing beverages, while the food type involved in the case is a solid beverage, which does not belong to the list of types of foods that can be added with lactoferrin, so the food involved in the case has been added beyond the scope of lactoferrin, which violates the national food safety standards for the use of food nutrition enhancers, and the producer Lijun Technology Company should bear ten times the compensation liability for this. Although Wei Hong's one-time purchase of the food involved in the case is suspected of being aimed at claiming profits, it cannot be denied that his identity as a consumer is not denied, wei Hong found that the food did not meet the food safety standards after consuming and purchasing the food involved in the case, and he has the right to require the producer Lijun Technology Company to bear ten times the punitive damages according to the law. Lijun Technology Company claimed that the food involved in the case was commissioned by Feng Yulong, an outsider in the case, and that its reason for not being a producer was inconsistent with the facts ascertained, and this court did not accept it.
In summary, the appeal request of Sichuan Lijun Jingjing Biotechnology Co., Ltd. cannot be established and should be rejected; the first-instance judgment found that the facts were clear and the application of law was correct and should be upheld. In accordance with the first paragraph of article 170 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:
The appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.
The acceptance fee of the second-instance case was 10,360 yuan, which was borne by the appellant, Sichuan LijunJing Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
This judgment is final.
Judge Duan Xiaoling
Judge Xia Xingyun
Judge Zhou Zhou
April 1, 2020
Judge's assistant Zhao Xi
![Today, I will take you to know what are the nutritional fortification agents? What foods are nutrient enhancers commonly used for? Will flour be overdose of nutrients after eating nutrient boosters? References on calcium and high calcium milk[fig]]()