论文部分内容阅读
2005年1月,宏泰公司因货物申报情况与实际进口货物不符,被某海关课处罚款人民币35万元,有关《行政处罚决定书》于1月20日送迭宏泰公司,该公司对此未提出异议并执行了处罚决定。2005年3月中旬,宏泰公司获悉海关对另一公司相似的申报不实行为只罚款人民币10万元,该公司认为某海关先前对其作出的处罚决定过重,有悖于过罚相当原则,遂于4月1日向某海关的上一级海关申请行政复议,请求复议机关考虑其实际过错程度重新进行量罚。复议机关经审查认为,宏泰公司针对某海关处罚决定提出的复议请求已超出《行政复议法》所规定的申请时限,且不存在延误期限的法定事由。鉴于此,复议机关根据《行政复议法》和《海关实施〈行政复议法〉办法》的有关规定, 对宏泰公司的复议申请作出不予受理决定。
In January 2005, Fergus Company fined RMB 350,000 due to a discrepancy between the declaration of the goods and the actual imported goods. The relevant “Decision on Administrative Penalty” was sent to Ferretic Company on January 20, Objected and executed the sanction decision. In mid-March 2005, Fergus informed the Customs that a similar declaration to another company was not implemented for a fine of only 100,000RMB. The company considered that the previous decision made by a custom on its punishment was too heavy and contrary to the principle of punishment, Then on April 1 to the Customs of a customs application for administrative reconsideration, the reconsideration authority requested to consider the actual level of fault to re-measure and punishment. Upon review, the review authority held that the petition for reconsideration made by Fergus in respect of the punishment decision of a customs office has exceeded the application deadline stipulated in the Administrative Review Law and there is no statutory cause for the delay. In view of this, the reconsideration authority shall make an inadmissibility decision on the application for reconsideration made by Fergus in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Administrative Reconsideration Law and the Measures of the Customs for the Implementation of the Administrative Reconsideration Law.