A Claimant Failed in the Lafite Case and Bear the Processing Fee
Write | WBO Team
Translate and Edit | WBO Jessie
Days before, a claimant not only did not get any compensation, but also had to bear the processing fee of 8,454 RMB in the second instance, due to the final judgment of Wuhan Intermediate Court for purchasing Lafite without Chinese back label.
This case is a prime example in wine industry, which contains the phenomenon of Professional extortioner of fraud fighting and the abuse of “food safety” application.
On July 11, 2017, Zhong Huixiong purchased 2 bottles of Lafite 2007 vintage and 2 bottles of the 2008 vintage with no Chinese back label, which priced at 15,800 RMB/bottle and 5,880RMB/bottle respectively, the cheaper one was regarded as Carruades de Lafite. Zhong paid 43,360RMB in total by cards and obtained VAT invoice.
Afterwards, Zhong appealed to the court and required the defendant, Wuhan Friendship International Hotel, to refund 43,360 RMB and 10 times the amount of compensation, that is, 433,600 RMB, and bear the legal costs of the case, on the grounds that the wines he bought had no Chinese labels and instructions.
The court of first instance found that these Lafite in Wuhan Friendship International Hotel was purchased from a company based in Hubei and the company imported Lafite wines through Tianjin and Shanghai Customs during March and December 2011.
Zhong’s claim is based on the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China. The ninety-seventh Article of the law stipulates that imported prepackaged food and food additives should be labeled in Chinese. The second paragraph of Article 148 stipulates that a company produces food that does not meet the food safety standards or knowingly operates food that does not conform to the food safety standards, the consumer may, in addition to demanding compensation for losses, demand compensation from the producer or operator for ten times the price or three times the loss.
The Court of first Instance held that the second paragraph of Article 148 of the Law also stipulates: “Except where there are flaws in food labels and instructions which do not affect food safety and do not mislead consumers.”
Therefore, the court supported Zhong’s request for refund, but Zhong should return wines involved in this case to that Hotel. When returning the wine, it should be packaged in good condition. If damaged or missing, the Hotel will deduct the refund according to the unit price of sales.
In this case, the court of first instance held that Zhong did not open and drink the wine after purchasing them. Although wines in this case have no Chinese label, there is no evidence to prove its existence of toxic, harmful or non-nutritional food safety problems, and there is no evidence to prove its misleading to Zhong as well. Thus, Zhong's claim for compensation of ten times price is not supported.
The case processing fee of the first instance is 8,454RMB, and the half charge is 4,227 RMB. The plaintiff Zhong bears 3804.30RMB and the defendant Wuhan Friendship International Hotel bears 422.70 RMB.
The plaintiff appealed to Wuhan Intermediate People's Court. On July 16 this year, the court of second instance rejected the appeal according to law, uphelding the original judgment then charged 8,454 RMB for the case of second instance, which should be paid by Zhong in the end.
Zhao Chunxiang, a lawyer in Beijing, pointed out that the concept of the Judicial office has changed from encouraging consumers to defend their rights and crack down on counterfeiting in the past to regulating consumer’s rights on fighting against counterfeiting and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of both consumers and companies.
This case is related to the alcohol market and it has positive significance for wine business insiders.