Enterprise Penalized for Waste Discharge and Sues Environmental Protection Bureau
Beijing Tengyue Kailong Metal Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tengyue Kailong Company”) discharged waste gas during its production activities. The Changping District Environmental Protection Bureau issued an administrative penalty against the company, ordering it to cease illegal acts and imposing a fine of RMB 300,000. Dissatisfied with this decision, Tengyue Kailong Company filed a lawsuit against the Changping District Environmental Protection Bureau, petitioning for the revocation of the penalty. Recently, the Changping District People’s Court held an open trial of the case and dismissed all the company’s claims in court.
A Fine of RMB 300,000 for Waste Gas Emission
On October 20, 2014, Beijing issued a blue alert for severe air pollution. On the morning of the same day, the Changping District Environmental Protection Bureau received a public telephone report, alleging that Tengyue Kailong Company located in Machikou Town, Changping District was running production operations. The strong pungent paint odor posed a serious hazard to the physical health of teachers, students from nearby primary schools and local residents, and the informant requested environmental authorities to launch an investigation and impose sanctions. Since 2011, the enterprise had received numerous public reports for environmental violations, and environmental authorities had repeatedly issued administrative penalties and rectification orders against it.
Law enforcement officers from the Changping District Environmental Protection Bureau immediately conducted an on-site inspection. They found the doors and windows of the painting workshop wide open, and the hazardous work generating volatile organic waste gas was not carried out inside enclosed spaces or dedicated equipment as required by regulations. The environmental bureau filed a case against the enterprise on the spot. On December 16, 2014, it issued an Administrative Penalty Decision, ordering the company to stop illegal activities and pay a full fine of RMB 300,000.
The Enterprise Sues the Environmental Protection Bureau for Dissatisfaction with the Penalty
Refusing to accept the penalty decision, Tengyue Kailong Company submitted an administrative reconsideration application to the Changping District People’s Government on February 10, 2015. On April 2, 2015, the Changping District People’s Government issued a reconsideration ruling to uphold the original penalty issued by the environmental bureau. The enterprise subsequently instituted administrative litigation against both the Changping District Environmental Protection Bureau and the Changping District People’s Government, requesting the court to annul the administrative penalty made by the environmental bureau.
On the afternoon of May 28, the Changping District People’s Court conducted an open trial. Sun Yun, Deputy Director of the Changping District Environmental Protection Bureau, appeared in court as the person-in-charge of the administrative organ to respond to the lawsuit. During the hearing, representatives of Tengyue Kailong Company argued that the enterprise had not conducted any hazardous operations on the day of environmental inspection, so the penalty lacked legal grounds. In response, the environmental bureau presented law enforcement video footage recorded during the inspection to prove that the company had indeed carried out painting work without complying with enclosure requirements, leaving the workshop windows open.
The Court Dismisses the Litigation Claim in Court
After hearing the case, the Changping District People’s Court held that pursuant to the Beijing Municipal Regulations on the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution, the defendant Changping District Environmental Protection Bureau possessed statutory authority to impose administrative penalties on the plaintiff Tengyue Kailong Company. Court investigation confirmed that the penalty decision was supported by clear facts and solid evidence, applied legal provisions correctly, and followed legitimate procedural steps. The RMB 300,000 fine fell within the statutory discretion range and complied with the legislative tenet of strict pollution governance.
The court further noted that after the plaintiff applied for administrative reconsideration, the Changping District People’s Government accepted the application in accordance with the law, delivered a copy of the application to the respondent within the statutory time limit, conducted a documentary review based on the respondent’s written response and supporting evidence, and issued a reconsideration decision upholding the original penalty within the legal timeframe. All reconsideration procedures were legitimate.
In the end, the court rendered a judgment dismissing all litigation claims filed by the plaintiff Beijing Tengyue Kailong Metal Products Co., Ltd.
