Direct answer
If the product contains ingredients banned by Chinese law (e.g. GB 2760) or lacks mandatory import inspection/quarantine, courts treat it as unsafe food and 10× is in play — even with origin-country compliance, and even if the buyer never consumed it (SPC Guiding Case No. 23). If testing shows the food is safe and the only issue is font size, English larger than Chinese, or other non-core label form, SPC Interpretation Art. 8 (Aug 2024) generally excludes 10×; refund only.
At-a-glance
| Path | Facts | Formula | Case colour |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unsafe food | Banned additive, toxic risk, no CIQ | max(10×P, 3×L) | Shanghai Railway — tadalafil in coffee; 10× awarded |
| Formal label | Safe on test; no deception | Refund; no 10× | Nanjing Gulou — missing CN label, quality OK |
| Fraud (non-food or plus deception) | Intent + materiality + reliance | max(3×P, 500) | See Ch.3 / Guiding Case 17 |
Assumption box: P = invoice price; L = proven actual loss; consumption not required for FSL 148 (GC 23).
Scope / legal framework
Food Safety Law Art. 148. Punitive damages for non-compliant food: 10× purchase price or 3× actual loss.
SPC Interpretation on food/drug punitive damages Art. 8 (2024). Formal labelling defects that do not affect safety or mislead consumers do not support 10×.
SPC Guiding Case No. 23 (Sun v. Nanjing supermarket). No need to prove consumption or bodily injury if mandatory safety standards fail.
Practical workflow
- Pre-entry ingredient match to GB 2760 (additives) and GB 14880 (fortifiers).
- Hold Customs inspection/quarantine certificates, origin CFS, and third-party lab reports.
- On suit: lead with “label ≠ hazard” evidence; do not argue “not eaten” as a complete defence.
Common mistakes
- Home-country CFS as a GB 2760 defence.
- Settling 10× on a pure font-size case.
- Destroying retained samples.
Action checklist
- ☐ Formula lock vs GB 2760/14880
- ☐ CIQ + lab pack per lot
- ☐ Counsel script: safety vs form
