The incident occurred in Guangxi, where employees secretly sold counterfeit cigarettes and the Tobacco Bureau fined the boss

In Yulin, Guangxi, the Tobacco Bureau seized some counterfeit cigarettes at the cigarette shop run by Li and fined Li 1,238 Yuan. A year later, Li went to court to sue the Tobacco Bureau and requested to revoke the penalty. The court ruled this way. Li runs a tobacco shop and holds a tobacco retail license. He usually hires Zhu to take care of the store, but he will only come to check out the store at the end of the month.

On that day, Zhu was the only one in the store. The Tobacco Bureau came to the store to inspect and found that the last 16 digits of the 32-digit laser code on more than a dozen cigarettes were the same as the Yulin Tobacco Company's "Jade Cigarette Logo" 32 The handwriting of the laser code was different, so the store was investigated on the grounds that it was suspected of not purchasing goods from the local tobacco wholesale company. After the appeal, the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Tobacco Product Quality Supervision and Inspection Station inspected the above-mentioned seized cigarettes and concluded that they were counterfeit registered trademarks and shoddy cigarettes. Subsequently, the Tobacco Bureau fined Li 1,238 yuan and gave it to Zhu to sign for receipt. Afterwards, the Tobacco Bureau received the fine. For unknown reasons, after the incident, Li not only did not file an administrative lawsuit, nor did he even file an administrative review. However, one year later, Li sued in court and requested the court to revoke the administrative penalty for the following reasons:

First, the act of selling counterfeit cigarettes was Zhu’s personal behavior and had nothing to do with him. The Tobacco Bureau punished He didn't know about it from beginning to end. The Tobacco Bureau didn't notify him, and Zhu didn't tell him either;

Secondly, the power of attorney presented by the Tobacco Bureau was forged by Zhu, and the copy of his ID card was copied and pasted. The one that went up was on special paper issued by the Tobacco Bureau, and the signature and fingerprints on the two pieces of evidence were not his own;

Thirdly, the Tobacco Bureau said that he had been notified by phone, but provided Without any evidence, it should bear the adverse consequences of being unable to provide evidence;

The Tobacco Bureau defended this:

First, Li is the operator of the tobacco shop, and Zhu is the operator of the place. As a staff member responsible for daily operations, Li should be responsible for Zhu's duties and conduct according to law. Li's assertion that selling counterfeit cigarettes was Zhu's personal behavior is inconsistent with the facts and legal provisions;

Second, Zhu maintains that selling counterfeit cigarettes is Zhu's personal behavior. Li's tobacco retail license and ID card, being investigated and processed at Li's business premises, and signing relevant documents and paying fines are enough to determine that Zhu acted on behalf of Li and that Li knew that he was punished;

Third, whether Li’s signature and fingerprints on the power of attorney provided by Zhu are authentic will not affect the Tobacco Bureau’s investigation and determination of the illegal facts and the administrative penalty decision made. Legal effect;

Fourthly, Li, as the operator of the illegal business premises involved in the case, the holder of the tobacco monopoly retail license and Zhu’s employer, claimed that he was unaware of the punishment, which is contrary to common sense. . What did the court decide?

After hearing, the court of first instance held that:

First, in this case, the tobacco shop was opened by Li, and Zhu was an employee hired by Li to manage the tobacco shop. daily operations, etc. During the investigation by the Tobacco Bureau, Zhu showed the comprehensive store's tobacco retail license, Li's ID and other materials. The Tobacco Bureau had sufficient reasons to believe that the third party Zhu had the authority to entrust the case and accept the processing on Li's behalf.

Second, the place where the Tobacco Bureau handed over the penalty decision to Zhu for signature was in the research store run by Li during working hours. Therefore, Zhu’s behavior of signing the document should be regarded as an official act, and The fine has been paid, and it should be deemed that Li knew the content of the administrative penalty and paid the fine. The prosecution period for Li to file an action for revocation should start from this time.

In this case, Li’s prosecution period obviously exceeded the prosecution period stipulated by law, and there was no delay in the prosecution period due to force majeure or reasons not attributed to him. In summary, the court of first instance ruled to reject Li’s claim. Li was dissatisfied and appealed again, but was also rejected by the second instance court. In fact, this case tells us that we must protect our rights within the time limit specified by law. Otherwise, once the legal time limit is exceeded, the law will not protect us regardless of the facts.

"The law does not protect people who sleep on their rights", this is what it means. Dear readers, what do you think about this?