A farmer in Yancheng, Jiangsu Province was issued a fine of 100,000 yuan by the Market Supervision Administration for making a profit of 180 yuan from selling mutton.
At 3 p.m. on December 24th, the second instance of an administrative lawsuit was held in public in Yancheng Intermediate Court Room 17, regarding a case where the Dafeng Market Supervision Bureau of Jiangsu Yancheng City imposed a fine of 100,000 yuan on a farmer who sold one sheep for a profit of 180 yuan.
On November 21, 2023, staff members of the Dafeng Market Supervision Bureau in Yancheng City found one sheep carcass and six sheep heads without inspection stamps and quarantine marks at the stall of farmer Chen Guangfang in the city’s central market. During the inspection process, Chen Guangfang admitted that there were three more sheep carcasses in his refrigerator at home and led the enforcement personnel to his home to complete the seizure procedures.
On November 24, Chen Guangfang submitted a “situation statement” with certification from the village committee of Zaonan Village, Fenghua Street, and the management office of the city’s central market. The statement confirmed that Chen Guangfang’s family had an elderly person with late-stage lymph cancer who needed huge amounts of medical expenses, and that his family was facing financial difficulties. The statement requested a lenient treatment and assurance of no similar incidents in the future.
On January 18, 2024, the Dafeng Market Supervision Bureau issued an administrative penalty notice to Chen Guangfang, proposing to impose an administrative penalty on his behavior of selling one sheep and six sheep heads with a profit of 180 yuan. The proposed penalties included seizing six sheep heads and four sheep (including three sheep carcasses seized at home), confiscating the illegal income of 180 yuan, and a fine of 130,180 yuan.
On February 5, 2024, the Dafeng Market Supervision Bureau sent samples of sheep heads and mutton for inspection. On February 23, the inspection report issued by China Inspection Traceability Jiangsu Technical Service Co., Ltd. showed that the batch of mutton sampled for testing met the standards for veterinary drug residues and metal residues set by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, and was qualified.
Before formally imposing administrative penalties, the Dafeng Market Supervision Bureau held a hearing and announced the inspection and quarantine conclusion as “up to standard”. After a collective discussion, “the statement for exemption or reduction of penalties made by Chen Guangfang is not credible”, and finally, considering the inspection results of the meat involved and the family’s special circumstances, a fine of 100,000 yuan was imposed, four sheep carcasses and six sheep heads were confiscated, and the illegal income of 180 yuan was confiscated.
On May 6, 2024, individual farmer Chen Guangfang filed a lawsuit against the Dafeng Market Supervision Bureau in court, requesting the court to revoke the original administrative penalty on the grounds of wrong fact finding and excessive punishment in the administrative penalty notice, as well as facing poverty due to the fine.
After hearing the case, Yancheng Yandu People’s Court issued an administrative judgment on September 26, 2024. The judgment clarified that Guangfang mutton business had purchased six uninspected live sheep totaling 270 kilograms for 8100 yuan. The operator slaughtered these live sheep at home and sold them at a stall in the central market of Dafen District in Yancheng City with a total value of 9607.2 yuan. The sold mutton was worth 45 kilograms with a profit of only 180 yuan. However, none of the mutton or sheep heads had undergone inspection.
The first instance judgment held that the administrative organ’s decision on the involved administrative penalty was clear in fact finding, had sufficient evidence, applied the law correctly, had appropriate punishment, and followed legal procedures. The court rejected the plaintiff’s诉讼请求. Chen Guangfang appealed against this ruling to the盐城市中级人民法院.
According to food safety law and regulations on pork slaughter management, farmers should declare quarantine to the local animal health supervision agency before self-slaughter to prevent disease transmission.
Staff members from the Dafeng Market Supervision Bureau who attended the trial believed that Chen Guangfang, registered as an individual business in 2000 and engaged in related business for more than 20 years, should have known or should have been aware that mutton and sheep heads need inspection and quarantine before entering the market. He did not possess any circumstances for exemption from punishment, and the sold mutton could not be inspected, causing harm consequences that could not be eliminated without statutory mitigating circumstances. According to higher-level regulations and special action deployment, it is necessary to severely investigate and deal with the sale of meat without inspection and quarantine. Any mitigation or reduction of punishment must be supported by evidence.
During the trial, Mr. Chen Guangfang admitted that selling mutton without inspection was illegal but repeatedly argued that he was doing good deeds because a cancer patient named Gu needed money urgently and he helped slaughter and sell mutton. He hoped that the court could consider his family’s actual difficulties.
The reporter learned that the six sheep involved were raised by Gu Delan from Dafen District’s Xintuan Town Chang’an Village. Gu Delan passed away during the period of punishment for this case. In a handwritten statement requesting leniency in dealing with Chen Guangfang from Mr Gu’s younger brother Gu Dekui wrote: “Because my brother was sick with late-stage cancer treatment needed money so I helped him sell some sheep but it was said to be illegal I am sorry to others.” However, no official documentation has been released about this matter yet.
The presiding judge organized court investigations and debates around four key issues in this administrative penalty: fact identification validity of procedures legal application punishment range etceteralogue from both sides whose attitudes were once relatively opposed each other throughout it they received insufficient relevant documentation so whether we should expect light sentences is yet unclear Attendance lawy In particular regarding Mr Guo’s statement on “reducing penalty on first-time violation with harmlessness”, whether such circumstance could be used to mitigate this farmer’s legal consequences will become another argument topic between lawyers & judgeIn order to further learn about it relevant legal documents have been reviewedThe food safety law stipulates that “if meat without proper quarantine is illegally traded & its value is less than RMB ten thousand monetary fines are imposed from RMB one hundred thousand to one hundred fifty thousand yuan”. The reporter also reviewed relevant regulations in Jiangsu Province’s Market Supervision Administrative Penalty Discretionary Application Rules which stipulates eight conditions for not imposing penalties including minor violations rectified promptly without causing harm consequences etceteralogue which can be used as references for whether this farmer can get light punishmentIn today’s trial both sides had sufficient time to express their viewpoints but no judgment was made on this case & we will continue to pay attention to its progress.（原报道为《江苏盐城一农民卖羊肉获利百元被市监局开出十万罚单》）
