The case of selling substandard concrete was selected as a typical case of the Supreme Law!

Recently, the Supreme People's Court issued the first batch of ten typical cases of administrative litigation involving market access, and one case of Suzhou Court was selected. In December

2018, Jiangsu Jinmou Company and Kunshan Hongmou Concrete Co., Ltd. signed a contract for the purchase and sale of concrete, which stipulated that Hongmou Company would provide ready-mixed concrete for the construction of a residential project. After the quality problems of the project, the main reason for the insufficient strength of concrete was identified through the testing and professional demonstration of professional organizations. A residential construction department imposed a fine on Hongmou Company for selling substandard cement (concrete), and ordered the construction party to rectify the poured project within a time limit (after demolition, recasting and physical reinforcement, the acceptance was qualified). On November 24,

2020, a housing and construction department issued (2020) 352 Circular on the Decision to Deal with the Quality of Concrete Strength of Residential Projects on the South Side of 339 Provincial Highway and the East Side of Qingyang North Road in Zhoushi Town, and decided to issue a circular on the quality of concrete strength of residential projects in accordance with the Interim Measures for the Registration and Management of Materials for Housing Construction and Municipal Infrastructure Projects in Kunshan City. The material registration of ready-mixed concrete registered by Hongmou Company shall be cancelled, and the registration shall not be declared again within six months, and the company shall be included in the list of construction enterprises suspended from undertaking business in the city. Hongmou Company refused to accept the judgment and appealed to the court to revoke the "352 Circular", take remedial measures, and review the normative documents of the Interim Measures. In the first instance,

the Changshu People's Court held that the provisions of Article 15, paragraph 6, of the Interim Measures on the cancellation of material registration obviously exceeded the scope and scope of Article 22, paragraph 2, of the Measures for the Supervision and Administration of the Quality of Housing Construction and Municipal Infrastructure Projects in Jiangsu Province, in view of the fact that the expiration of the period of cancellation of registration has been irrevocable. Therefore, the judgment confirmed that "No.352 Circular" was illegal and rejected other litigation requests. After the appeal

of Hongmou Company, the second instance of the Intermediate People's Court of Suzhou held that the provisions of Article 4 of the Interim Measures concerning "the materials for registration shall not be used until the registration is completed and published" and Article 15 concerning "C ancellation of registration" and "no re-declaration of registration within six months" should be substantially established to restrict the development of production and operation activities. It obviously exceeded the registration content and scope stipulated in the Provincial Engineering Quality Supervision Measures, increased the obligations of enterprises, and the Interim Measures failed to fulfill the relevant formulation and filing procedures, so the judgment rejected the appeal and maintained the original judgment. Subsequently, a housing construction department accepted judicial advice and revoked the Interim Measures on its own. In

this case, the court clearly pointed out that the quality of ready-mixed concrete was related to construction safety, and while strictly investigating and punishing illegal enterprises, the specific measures taken should have legal basis; the Interim Measures set many extrajudicial restrictions, which should not be used as the legal basis for the notification of the case. When the court examines the normative documents together, it is necessary to strengthen the examination from the aspects of whether the enacting organ exceeds its authority or violates the legal procedures, whether it conflicts with the provisions of the superior, whether it illegally increases the obligations of citizens, legal persons and other organizations or impairs their legitimate rights and interests, supervise and support the administrative organs to perform their duties according to law, and create a market-oriented and legalized business environment.