您的位置: 首页 » 法律资料网 » 法律法规 »

财政部2009年工作要点

时间:2024-07-11 21:25:23 来源: 法律资料网 作者:法律资料网 阅读:9710
下载地址: 点击此处下载

财政部2009年工作要点

财政部


财政部2009年工作要点


  根据党中央、国务院关于2009年工作部署,2009年财政工作的总体要求是:全面贯彻党的十七大和十七届三中全会精神,以邓小平理论和“三个代表”重要思想为指导,深入贯彻落实科学发展观,实施积极的财政政策,扩大政府公共投资,实行结构性减税,调整国民收入分配格局,优化财政支出结构,推进财税制度改革,支持科技创新和节能减排,促进经济增长、结构调整和地区协调发展,保障和改善民生。坚持增收节支、统筹兼顾、留有余地的方针,加强财政科学管理,强化财政监督,提高财政资金绩效。切实加强干部队伍建设,努力造就一支高素质的财政干部队伍。积极发挥财政职能作用,推动经济社会又好又快发展。

  具体工作有以下九个方面三十八项重点:

  一、实施积极的财政政策

  (一)扩大政府公共投资。增加中央基建投资,主要用于农业基础设施及农村民生工程建设,保障性住房建设,教育、医疗卫生等社会事业建设,地震灾后恢复重建,节能减排和生态建设,支持企业自主创新、技术改造及服务业发展,铁路、公路、机场、港口等基础设施建设。按照规划将灾后恢复重建基金用于灾区城乡住房、基础设施、产业重建等方面。创新政府投资运作机制,对地方小型项目的投资安排,实行按建设任务等切块下达。积极引导社会资金投向政府鼓励的项目和符合国家产业政策的领域。

  (二)促进扩大消费需求。加大对家电下乡、农机下乡、汽车摩托车下乡、老旧汽车报废更新的补贴力度,积极开拓农村消费市场。扩大粮食、石油、有色金属、特种钢材等重要物资储备。强化各项强农惠农财税政策,多渠道促进农民增收。提高城乡低保补助水平,增加低收入群体收入。实施积极的就业政策,努力扩大就业。进一步优化财政支出结构,优先保障和改善民生,重点加大对保障性安居工程、教育、医疗卫生、社会保障和就业等民生领域的支出。

  (三)实行结构性减税政策。全面实施消费型增值税。调整小规模纳税人标准,降低征收率。相应取消进口设备免征增值税、外商投资企业采购国产设备增值税退税,以及对国内部分产品实行的增值税优惠政策。取消养路费等六项收费,逐步取消政府还贷二级公路收费,相应提高现行成品油消费税单位税额。实施好企业所得税法。继续执行2008年已实施的提高个人所得税工薪所得减除费用标准、暂免征收储蓄存款和证券交易结算资金利息个人所得税、降低证券交易印花税税率及单边征收、降低住房交易税收等一系列税费减免政策。调整完善出口退税和关税政策,支持劳动密集型和高技术含量、高附加值产品出口。统一取消和停征100项行政事业性收费。积极落实促进中小企业发展的财税优惠政策。

  (四)推动经济结构优化。大力促进现代农业发展。实行有利于自主创新和科技进步的财税政策,促进企业加快技术改造和技术进步,支持发展高新技术产业。引导增加银行贷款,重点支持行业调整和振兴规划项目等。落实促进自主创新的政府采购政策。扶持中小企业发展,出台《中小企业政府采购管理办法》。综合运用贴息、税收优惠等政策工具,推动节能减排、生态建设和环境保护。建立完善资源有偿使用制度和生态环境补偿机制。建立资源型企业可持续发展准备金制度。增加转移支付规模,促进区域协调发展。

  二、大力支持农村改革发展

  (五)继续加大“三农”投入。健全财政支农资金稳定增长机制,大幅度增加对农村基础设施建设和社会事业发展的投入,大幅度提高政府土地出让收益、耕地占用税新增收入用于农业的比例,大幅度增加对中西部地区农村公益性建设项目的投入。支持建立健全农村金融服务体系,综合运用贴息、保费补贴、税收优惠等财税政策措施,引导社会资金投入,形成多元化支农投入格局。在稳定现行农业保险保费补贴政策的基础上,研究适当提高种植业补贴比例,稳步增加补贴品种。继续推动整合相关支农政策和资金,以现代农业生产发展资金为平台,统筹用于支持各地发展粮食等优势主导产业。

  (六)加强和完善促进农业发展的财税政策。加大良种补贴力度,提高补贴标准,实现水稻、小麦、玉米、棉花全覆盖,扩大油菜和大豆良种补贴范围。农机具购置补贴覆盖到全国所有农牧业县。加大农资综合补贴力度,完善调整机制。扩大粮食直补。较大幅度提高粮食最低收购价,及时足额安排补贴资金。加大对产粮(油)大县的奖励力度。健全粮食风险基金政策,逐步取消粮食主产区资金配套。加强农业综合开发,以粮食主产区为重点,加快中低产田改造,推进高标准农田建设,增强农业综合生产能力。完善农产品加工业发展税收支持政策。健全贷款贴息和补助等扶持方式,促进农业产业化发展。加快大中型和重点小型病险水库除险加固进度,加强灌区节水改造和小型农田水利建设。推动农业科技创新和技术推广。推进农民专业合作经济组织发展。认真落实促进生猪、油料、奶业发展的财税政策。在全国全面推行家电下乡、农机下乡、汽车摩托车下乡、老旧汽车报废更新补贴政策。加强农村现代流通体系建设,促进商贸流通服务业发展。完善中央财政农业保险保费补贴政策。研究探索建立符合国情的巨灾保险制度。

  (七)促进农村社会全面进步。推动农村教育、医疗卫生、社会保障、文化等社会事业发展。加大农村公共基础设施和环境综合整治投入。将农村公路管护纳入财政支持范围,建立稳定的资金来源。建立农村客运政策性补贴制度。加大农村饮水安全工程和沼气工程投入。落实退耕还林政策,研究完善天然林保护措施。健全中央森林生态效益补偿基金制度。实行新的扶贫标准,提高到人均1196元,对农村低收入人口全面实施扶贫政策。支持加强农村劳动力培训。农村部分计划生育家庭奖励扶助标准由人均600元提高到720元。扩大西部地区计划生育“少生快富”工程实施范围。

  (八)深化农村综合改革。加快乡镇机构、农村义务教育、县乡财政管理体制和集体林权制度改革。探索建立“以钱养事”农村公共服务新机制。2010年基本完成农村义务教育债务化解工作。积极稳妥化解其他乡村债务。深化减轻大湖区农民负担综合改革,启动减轻农业用水负担综合改革试点。扩大村级公益事业建设一事一议财政奖补试点范围。建立健全村级组织运转经费保障机制。

  三、切实保障和改善民生

  (九)推动教育优先发展。落实免除城市义务教育阶段学生学杂费政策,支持解决好进城务工人员特别是农民工随迁子女的就学问题。全面实施农村义务教育经费保障机制改革的各项政策,并将中小学公用经费达到中央出台的基准定额。着力帮助解决农村寄宿制学校附属设施不足、校舍安全等突出问题。进一步落实普通本科高校、高等和中等职业学校家庭经济困难学生资助政策,对中等职业学校和高等院校家庭经济困难学生给予资助。继续实施国家助学贷款政策,大力推动生源地信用助学贷款。继续支持国家级示范性高等职业院校、职业教育实训基地建设,并对中等职业学校农村家庭经济困难学生和涉农专业学生实行免费。继续推进高水平大学和重点学科建设。完善中央高校财政拨款制度。

  (十)加快发展医疗卫生事业。积极支持医药卫生体制改革。完善新型农村合作医疗制度,全面建立城镇居民基本医疗保险制度。妥善解决地方政策性关闭破产国有企业、中央和中央下放政策性关闭破产国有企业及地方依法破产国有企业退休人员参加基本医疗保险问题。完善城乡医疗救助制度,并与新型农村合作医疗、城镇居民基本医疗保险制度有机衔接。加强基层医疗卫生服务体系建设,初步建立国家基本药物制度。健全基层医疗卫生服务体系,重点支持建设2.9万所乡镇卫生院和改扩建5000所中心乡镇卫生院,支持城市社区卫生服务机构、乡镇卫生院配备医疗设备。建立健全公共卫生服务经费保障机制,强化预防保健、重大传染病防治等公共卫生工作,支持地方按项目为城乡居民免费提供基本公共卫生服务,促进基本公共卫生服务逐步均等化。支持公立医院改革试点。

  (十一)积极促进就业再就业。支持实施积极的就业政策,加大财政投入。发挥好政府公共投资和重大项目带动就业的作用,在农林水利、国土整治、生态环保等政府公共投资工程建设中,尽可能安排农民尤其是返乡农民工就业,积极推行以工代赈。加大就业援助,重点帮扶城镇就业困难人群、零就业家庭和受灾地区劳动力就业,对返乡创业的农民工给予政策扶持。实施促进高校毕业生参加科研项目和到基层、中西部地区、中小企业就业的优惠政策。对应征入伍服兵役的高校毕业生实行学费补偿和助学贷款代偿。支持加大对下岗失业人员和农民工的职业技能培训力度,实施好特别培训计划,鼓励企业在岗培训。运用税费减免、小额担保贷款贴息、社会保险补贴、公益性岗位补贴、职业培训补贴等财税政策,支持中小企业和服务业吸纳就业,促进自主创业、自谋职业。

  (十二)完善社会保障制度。增加城乡低保补助资金,加强城乡低保制度与医疗救助、最低工资、农村五保供养、自然灾害生活救助等制度的衔接。今明两年继续提高企业退休人员基本养老金水平,保证2008-2010年的调整水平不低于前三年。扩大城镇职工基本养老保险覆盖面。继续开展做实企业职工基本养老保险个人账户试点,全面推进省级统筹。适时提高部分优抚对象等人员抚恤和生活补助标准。制订实施农民工养老保险办法。新型农村社会养老保险试点覆盖全国10%左右的县(市)。推动开展事业单位养老保险改革试点。出台养老保险关系转移接续办法,解决劳动力跨统筹地区流动时养老保险关系转移难问题。健全失业保险制度。继续支持做好国有企业政策性关闭破产工作,推进东北、中部地区及部分中央企业厂办大集体改革试点,支持解决库区移民的生产生活问题。

  (十三)支持实施保障性安居工程。加大对廉租住房建设和棚户区改造的投入,对中西部地区适当提高补助标准。严格按照规定,将住房公积金增值收益和土地出让净收益用于廉租住房保障。继续落实对廉租住房建设等方面的税费优惠政策,主要以实物方式,结合发放租赁补贴,解决城市低收入住房困难家庭的住房问题。加强农村危房改造,扩大试点范围。加快实施国有林区、垦区、中西部地区中央下放地方煤矿棚户区,以及采煤沉陷区民房搬迁维修改造工程。实施少数民族地区游牧民定居工程。研究制订住房公积金闲置资金支持经济适用房建设实施方案。落实好对首次购买普通住房的各项税费优惠政策,鼓励居民购买自住性、改善性住房。实施对住房转让环节营业税等相关减免政策,促进住房供应结构调整,加快住房二级市场和住房租赁市场发展。

  (十四)推进文化事业发展。逐步扩大博物馆、纪念馆免费开放范围。推动实施大遗址保护工程,加强国家重点文物保护。支持推进中央广播电视节目无线覆盖、全国文化信息资源共享、农村电影数字化放映、农家书屋等文化惠民工程,构建公共文化服务财政保障机制。推动文化体制改革,促进经营性文化事业单位转制为企业,发展文化产业。加强中央级文化企业国有资产管理。研究设立国家文化发展基金,重点促进文化创新和内容建设。

  (十五)积极支持国防和军队建设。改善部队官兵生活待遇,加强部队信息化建设。适当增加装备及配套设施,提高部队应对多种安全威胁、完成多样化军事任务的能力。大力支持国防工业自主创新,完善国防科研和武器装备生产体系。支持汶川地震灾区部队和军工企业基础设施恢复重建。

  (十六)维护公共安全。实施政法经费保障体制改革。明确经费保障责任,制定完善经费保障和业务装备标准,建立公用经费正常增长机制。推动地方公检法罚没收入上缴省级国库统一管理改革试点,实施“收支两条线”管理,完善政法经费管理制度。落实全国停征工商两费后工商部门经费保障政策。支持加大监管力度,切实维护食品药品质量安全。

  四、积极促进经济发展方式转变和区域协调发展

  (十七)支持科技创新。加大基础研究和应用研究投入力度,保障科技重大专项实施。支持国家(重点)实验室以及科研机构、大学科研条件和能力建设,探索产学研用有机结合的机制,推动科技成果产业化。全面推进现代农业产业技术体系建设。实施促进企业自主创新和技术改造的财税优惠政策和政府采购政策,加快高新技术产业和装备制造业发展,推动高新技术成果产业化。研究加强自主知识产权保护的财税政策。

  (十八)推进节能减排。增加节能减排投入。采取以奖代补的方式,支持十大重点节能工程、淘汰落后产能、“三河三湖”及松花江流域水污染防治、中西部城镇污水垃圾处理设施配套管网及重大减排工程。促进建立健全污染减排的指标、监测和考核体系。继续实施节能环保政府采购政策和政府强制采购节能产品制度。完善煤炭等矿产资源有偿使用制度和生态环境补偿机制。继续开展主要污染物排污权有偿取得和交易试点。支持推广高效节能产品和新能源汽车,促进发展新能源和可再生能源。运用财税政策,控制高耗能、高排放行业发展。加强天然林保护、退耕还林、退牧还草等重点工程建设。充分利用清洁发展机制基金,积极支持实施应对气候变化国家方案。

  (十九)推动区域协调发展。落实促进区域协调发展的各项财税政策。结合三江源保护等重大生态保护规划,通过提高转移支付补助比例的方式,增强禁止开发与限制开发区域政府提供公共服务的财政保障能力。加大转移支付力度,支持化解资源枯竭城市历史遗留的社会负担。增加对民族地区、粮食主产区和边境地区的转移支付。

  五、大力推进财税制度改革

  (二十)深化预算制度改革。研究建立公共财政预算、国有资本经营预算、政府性基金预算和社会保障预算有机衔接的国家财政预算体系。将部门预算改革拓展到基层预算单位,确保“十一五”期末全国县级以上单位都实行比较规范的部门预算。建立部门预算责任制度,强化部门预算编制、执行和监督主体的责任,建立健全预算编制、执行和监督相互协调、相互制衡的新机制。健全现代财政国库管理制度。逐步将所有预算单位实有资金账户纳入国库单一账户体系管理。推进国库集中收付和政府采购管理制度改革。完善中央国库现金管理运作机制,积极推动地方国库现金管理。深化国债管理改革,促进国债市场发展。推进政府会计改革工作。

  (二十一)完善财政体制。在保持分税制财政体制基本稳定的前提下,围绕推进基本公共服务均等化和主体功能区建设,健全中央和地方财力与事权相匹配的体制。逐步建立县级基本财力保障机制,提高基层政府提供公共服务的能力。规范财政转移支付制度。将中央对地方的转移性支出,简化为税收返还、一般性转移支付、专项转移支付三类。将地方上解与中央对地方税收返还作对冲处理,相应取消地方上解中央收入科目,简化和理顺中央与地方财政结算关系。拓展一般性转移支付的内涵和外延,提高一般性转移支付的规模和比例。严格控制新增专项转移支付,清理整合已有专项转移支付项目。完善转移支付分配办法,科学合理设置转移支付因素和权重。规范专项补助政策。进一步规范省以下政府间分配关系,适当统一省以下主要事权和支出责任划分,强化省级政府对义务教育、医疗卫生、社会保障等基本公共服务的支出责任。完善辖区内财力差异控制机制,均衡省以下财力分配。加快县乡财政体制改革。全面推进省直管县财政管理方式改革。因地制宜确定乡镇财政管理体制,推进乡财县管改革。

  (二十二)改革完善税收制度。实施成品油税费改革,切实取消相关收费,加强对人员安置的财力保障,完善对种粮农民等部分困难群体和公益性行业的补贴机制。推进增值税改革,及时研究解决增值税转型过程中出现的新问题,完善相关政策措施,确保改革平稳实施。继续完善企业所得税法相关配套政策。适当扩大资源税的征收范围,实行从价和从量相结合的计征方式,改变部分应税品目的计税依据。完善消费税制度,将部分严重污染环境、大量消耗资源的产品纳入征收范围。统一内外资企业和个人的城建税、教育费附加等制度。推进房产税改革。研究环境税改革方案。

  (二十三)积极支持其他改革。深化收入分配制度改革,促进提高低收入群体收入水平,实施义务教育教师绩效工资,推进事业单位收入分配制度改革。推动能源、资源、农产品等基础产品价格机制改革。支持污水垃圾处理和排污收费等改革。切实代行好国有金融资产出资人职责,积极稳妥推动中国农业银行、国家开发银行实施股份制改革,深化其他国有金融机构改革。促进建立健全金融市场风险保障制度。

  六、全面推进财政管理科学化精细化

  (二十四)加强财政法制建设。推进预算法修订工作。配合做好注册会计师法(修正案)、政府采购法实施条例、彩票管理条例的立法工作。加快财政转移支付管理条例、国有资本经营预算条例、财政资金支付条例、评估行业管理条例、船舶吨税暂行条例等的立法进程。强化财政法制宣传,认真做好财政行政复议应诉工作。深化财政行政审批制度改革。

  (二十五)严格预算管理。推进编制综合预算,增强预算编制的科学性和完整性。认真落实预算编报的有关要求,在科学编报本级预算收入的同时,上级财政要提前告知对下一般性和专项转移支付预计数。下级财政要完整编报上级的各项补助收入,进一步提高地方各级特别是县级预算编报的完整性。严格执行预算编报、批复时限和程序规定,控制代编预算规模,提高年初批复预算的到位率。建立健全机构编制与经费预算衔接机制,完善行政开支定员定额标准。建立重大项目支出预算事前评审机制,将项目预算做实做细做准。完善预算拨款结余管理方式,通过调整当年预算、核减下年预算等措施,促进结余资金管理与预算编制有机结合。加强预算执行管理,加快预算支出执行进度,健全覆盖各级财政的财政国库动态监控机制,提高预算执行的均衡性和效率。强化“收支两条线”管理,大力推进财税库银税收收入电子缴库横向联网和非税收入收缴管理改革。将经批准设立的全国性及中央部门和单位的所有行政事业性收费,全部纳入预算管理。扩大政府采购范围和规模,进一步推进电子化政府采购,建立健全监督处罚机制。扩大绩效考评试点范围,加快构建预算支出绩效考评机制。增强风险意识,严格债务管理,努力防范财政风险。

  (二十六)狠抓增收节支。大力支持税务、海关部门依法加强税收征管,坚决制止和纠正越权减免税,严厉打击偷骗税违法活动。规范非税收入管理。对于各项税收和非税收入都要努力做到依法征收,应收尽收,确保财政收入稳定增长。切实保障重点支出需要,严格控制一般性支出,压缩公务购车用车、会议经费、公务接待费用、出国(境)经费等支出。严格控制党政机关楼堂馆所建设,严禁超面积、超标准建设和装修。严格控制党政机关信息化建设项目,促进资源整合。强化公务支出管理,深化公务卡管理改革。牢记“两个务必”,树立过紧日子的思想,勤俭办一切事业,严肃财经纪律,坚决反对大手大脚花钱和铺张浪费的行为。深入开展“小金库”检查,强化资金管理。

  (二十七)严格财政监督。健全覆盖所有政府性资金和财政运行全过程的监督机制,强化事前和事中监督,促进监督与管理的有机融合。重点加强对积极财政政策执行、资金分配管理使用情况的监督检查和政府投资的投资评审,强化内部监督、日常监管与专项检查相结合,开展税收政策执行情况专项检查,坚决查处挤占、挪用、截留资金的行为,保障资金使用的安全、合规、有效,确保中央宏观调控政策有效落实。严格责任追究,加大对违法违规问题的处理处罚和信息披露力度。健全专员办工作机制,充分发挥专员办就地监管优势。严格注册会计师行业管理,加强对企业和行政事业单位财务管理、会计信息质量、会计师事务所和资产评估机构执业质量的监督。深入实施企业会计准则体系,制订发布适用于医院、学校的非企业会计制度。巩固和扩大会计准则国际趋同等效成果,实现中欧审计等效。促进实施和健全企业内部控制规范体系。有序推进会计信息化工程建设。

  (二十八)强化“双基”建设。切实抓好管理基础工作和基层建设。重点加强预算单位人员、资产负债、支出标准、项目库、收费项目和标准,财政供养人口、财源财力、非税收入、贫困人口等基本数据的收集整理,完善管理基础设施。立足基层加强财政管理,转变和充实乡镇财政职能,充分发挥县乡财政就近监管的优势,切实保障各项民生政策的有效落实。建立完善乡镇行政事业单位财务管理制度,加强监督检查和跟踪问效。积极推行“村财乡管”试点。

  (二十九)加快财政管理信息化建设。加快金财工程应用支撑平台建设,加强标准和管理规范建设,全面推进网络和安全建设,建立统一的运行维护体系。力争在年底前,基本完成省级财政部门的应用支撑平台推广实施,构建基于平台的财政核心业务系统。

  (三十)加强行政事业单位国有资产管理。积极推进和完善行政事业单位资产配置预算编审工作,建设资产管理信息系统,研究建立资产统计报告制度,加强国有资产收入管理。

  七、加强财经对外交流与合作

  (三十一)严格国际金融组织和外国政府贷款管理。结合国家宏观经济政策导向,有效利用国际金融组织和外国政府贷款。把好贷款项目立项和评审关。明确项目债务责任主体,强化监督检查。继续做好国际金融组织和外国政府贷款项目绩效评价工作。加强对地方外债指标监测和风险管理指导。积极争取并有效利用技援项目。推进与国际金融组织的知识合作,并向地方转移。

  (三十二)深入开展双边、多边财经交流与合作。加强国际宏观经济政策的协调,推动国际金融体系改革,增强我国在国际财经事务中的话语权。加强与国际金融组织的务实合作。推动中美战略与经济对话、中英经济财金对话、以及与有关国家的双边财经对话和财长互访等工作。深化东亚财金合作,继续推进大湄公河次区域和中亚区域合作。充分利用二十国集团等多边财经对话平台和论坛,妥善处理与主要发达国家关系,重点推动与发展中大国财经合作。积极参与世界贸易组织多哈回合谈判。稳步推进双边和区域贸易谈判,落实自由贸易区发展战略。筹备开好第三届国际税收对话机制全球大会,深入推进国际税收协调、合作和交流。做好我国加入WTO政府采购协议谈判相关工作。

  八、切实加强领导班子和干部队伍建设,搞好机关后勤服务

  (三十三)切实加强财政干部队伍建设。进一步推进各级财政部门领导班子建设,努力抓好财政干部队伍建设。完善干部教育培训机制,做好新一轮大规模培训财政干部工作。健全领导班子议事规则,规范决策程序,建立财政决策公众参与制度。健全和完善科学合理的财政干部选拔任用制度和考核评价体系。加强反腐倡廉建设,加快建立惩治和预防腐败体系,认真落实党风廉政建设责任制,规范权力运行流程,加大案件查处力度,深入推进财政系统党风廉政建设和反腐败各项工作。加强基层党组织建设。发展财政文化,促进和谐机关建设。

  (三十四)做好机关事务管理和服务保障工作。健全内部各项管理制度,保障机关正常运转。进一步规范办公用房和职工住房管理,积极推进房改工作和基建项目顺利开展。继续加强青年公寓、集体宿舍管理和办公区域、职工住宅维修工作。做好卫生、医疗、文印等工作。积极推动机关节能减排,建设节约型机关。

  (三十五)继续加强机关内部建设。切实改进机关作风,深入开展调查研究。加强会议和财务管理。做好离退休干部工作。努力提高服务水平。

  九、加强对外宣传,狠抓贯彻落实

  (三十六)加强财政政务公开工作。认真落实《政府信息公开条例》,按照以公开为原则、以不公开为例外的要求,积极推进财政政务公开,便于社会各方面监督。

  (三十七)加强财政新闻宣传等工作。抓紧建立舆论引导协调机制,完善新闻发布制度。针对财政热点、难点、疑点问题,多做宣传解释,积极争取社会各界更多的理解和支持,努力为财政改革与发展营造良好的舆论环境。

  (三十八)加强督查督办。加大对重点工作落实进展情况的督查督办力度,确保各项工作按要求有条不紊地向前推进。





海关总署、质检总局关于执行保障措施部分钢铁产品不加征特别关税有关问题的公告

海关总署 国家质量监督检验检疫总局


海关总署、质检总局关于执行保障措施部分钢铁产品不加征特别关税有关问题的公告


经国务院关税税则委员会批准,外经贸部于2003年1月17日发布了《外经贸部关于钢铁最终保障措施中部分产品配额到量后不加征特别关税的公告》〔2003年第6号〕(以下简称《公告》),规定自2003年2月1日起,对于该《公告》述及的特定最终保障措施产品(以下简称“调整产品”),在进口配额到量后不加征特别关税。现就有关执行问题公告如下:  


一、“调整产品”的具体范围。为执行《公告》规定,海关总署在2003年版《中华人民共和国海关进出口税则》税目的基础上细化出“调整产品”的10位数商品编号。“调整产品”的10位数商品编号、商品名称及备注和说明,详见本公告附件。  


二、“调整产品”的申报和验放。当有关保障措施产品达到配额量后,企业办理该产品项下“调整产品”的进口报关手续时,需按本公告附件所列相应的10位数商品编号申报。通关时海关应先按适用的关税税率和进口环节税税率办理征、免、保税验放手续,同时收取相当于加征特别关税税款的保证金后放行货物;其后,企业需向海关提交出入境检验检疫机构出具的检验证书,海关凭以确认已放行货物是否与申报相符,办理相应退还保证金或转税结案手续。  


三、根据《公告》附件规定,彩涂板“调整产品”的通关确认方式是凭出入境检验检疫机构出具检验证书。为执行这一调整规定,企业在办理彩涂板项下“调整产品”的进口报关手续时,需提交出入境检验检疫机构出具的《入境货物通关单》,其他申报要求和验放规定同上。  


四、“调整产品”的检验检疫放行手续仍按现行程序办理。对“调整产品”实施检验的检验检疫机构要根据本公告附件中“商品名称及备注”的内容,单独出具一份检验证书,列出区分“调整产品”所需要的技术指标,以供海关判定是否属于特定最终保障措施产品。  


五、2003年2月1日以前已加征特别关税的“调整产品”,所征税款不予退还。  


附件:保障措施调整产品一览表 


海关总署 质检总局  


二 ○ ○ 三 年 一 月 二 十 八 日







2012年中国法院知识产权司法保护状况(英文)

最高人民法院


2012年中国法院知识产权司法保护状况(英文)


Content

Introduction

Adjudicated according to Law, and Focused on Delivery of Justice
Served the Needs of Socioeconomic Development, and Implemented the National Intellectual Property Strategy
Increased adjudication supervision and guidance, and ensured consistency in application of law
Bolstered the foundation of Basic-Level Courts, and Strengthened the Adjudication Team

Conclusion



Introduction

   In 2012, the people’s courts have advanced judicial operations in the protection of intellectual property rights. Adjudication of intellectual property-related disputes has taken to new heights.
   Several major events relating to the judicial protection of intellectual property have taken place as follows:
Wang Shengjun, President of the Supreme People’s Court, presented the Report on Strengthening Intellectual Property Adjudication to Advance the Building of an Innovative Country at the Thirtieth Session of the Standing Committee of the Eleventh National People’s Congress, elaborating the people’s courts activities relating to intellectual property adjudication since 2008;
The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) has issued judicial interpretations Provisions on Issues Relating to the Application of the Law in Adjudicating Civil Disputes Arising from Monopolistic Behaviour, the Provisions on Issues Relating to the Application of the Law in Adjudicating Civil Disputes Involving the Infringement of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information and the judicial policy document Opinions on Leveraging the Adjudicatory Function to Provide Judicial Safeguards for Deepening the Reform of Scientific & Technological Institutions and for Accelerating the Establishment of a National System of Innovation;
The first national workshop for chief judges of intellectual property divisions was held in Guangzhou. This was the first time that Xi Xiaoming, Vice-president of the Supreme People's Court, provided a comprehensive narrative of the policy to “strengthen protection, classification, appropriate stringency” in the judicial protection of intellectual property;
The China-United States Intellectual Property Adjudication Conference was held in Beijing.

Adjudicated according to Law, and Focused on Delivery of Justice
  In 2012, the people’s courts discharged their official responsibility in adjudicating intellectual property matters. Delivery of justice was the top priority. Intellectual property-related cases were adjudicated fairly and efficiently. This has improved adjudication quality and efficiency, enhanced judicial credibility, and has enabled the judiciary to further its primary role in intellectual property protection.
  In the past year, the people’s courts have adjudicated cases involving all aspects of intellectual property law, encompassing civil, administrative and criminal matters. The number of intellectual property cases has increased substantially this year; the increase in the number of criminal cases most significant, more than double last year’s figures. In terms of the number of first instance intellectual property cases accepted in 2012, there were 87,419 civil cases, 45.99% more than last year; 2,928 administrative cases, 20.35% more than last year; and 13,104 criminal cases, 129.61% more than last year.
  
   Civil Litigation has become an increasingly important means to protect intellectual property.
    Adjudicating intellectual property-related civil disputes is essential to the people’s courts. Civil litigation is an important means to protecting intellectual property. In 2012, the people’s court have strengthened protection of various intellectual property branches: patent, to encourage innovation and drive development; trademark, to enable brand-building; copyright, to enhance the overall capacity and competitiveness of the cultural sector; competition, to motivate market players and invigorate the market.
   The number of first instance civil intellectual property cases accepted and disposed by local courts grew by 45.99% and 44.07% to 87,419 and 83,850 cases respectively. Within each intellectual property branch, the case numbers and percentage change compared to last year were as follows: 53,848 copyright cases, 53.04% higher; 19,815 trademark cases, 52.53% higher; 9,680 patent cases, 23.80% higher; 746 cases involving technology agreements, 33.93% higher; 1,123 cases involving unfair competition (of which, 55 were first instance civil cases involving monopoly disputes), 1.23% lower; 2,207 cases involved other intellectual property disputes, 0.64% higher. 1,429 first instance cases involving foreign parties were disposed, 8.18% higher; 613 first instance cases involving parties from either Hong Kong, Taiwan or Macao were disposed, 3.46% lower.
   For second instance cases involving civil intellectual property disputes, 9,581 were accepted, and 9,929 disposed (including carried over cases), 25.37% and 21.32% higher than last year respectively. New cases and concluded and reopened (zaishen) cases fell by 41.5% and 0.45%, to 172 and 223.
   SPC’s intellectual property division accepted 237 cases, concluded 246 cases (including carried over cases); 181 were newly reopened cases, and 186 were disposed (including carried over cases).
   Adjudication quality and efficiency has improved. Clearance rate of civil intellectual property cases of first instance at the local courts maintained at 2011’s level of 87.61%; appeal rate fell from 47.02% in 2011 to 39.53% in 2012; reopen (zaishen) rate fell from 0.51% in 2011 to 0.20% in 2012; and overrule or remand for retrial (chongshen) rate increased from 3.66% in 2011 to 5.46% in 2012. The percentage of civil intellectual property cases of first instance concluded within time limit increased from 98.57% in 2011 to 99.24% in 2012.
  27 cases preliminary injunction relating to intellectual property disputes were accepted by the various levels of people’s courts; approvals were granted for 83.33% of the cases admitted. To reduce the burden of proof on the part of the applicant, the people’s courts accepted 320 applications for pre-trial preservation of evidence, and 96.73% were granted approval. 74 applications for pre-trial preservation of property were accepted, and 94.67% approved.
  High profile cases include Apple Inc. and IP Application Development vs. Shenzhen Proview Technology, involving the “IPAD” trademark dispute; Sany Heavy Industry Co., Ltd vs. Ma’anshan City’s Yonghe Heavy Industry Technology Co., Ltd, involving an unfair competition dispute;Beijing University’s Founder Electronics Co. Ltd vs. Blizzard Entertainment etc., involving the copyright infringement of game fonts; Hu Jinqing and Wu Yunchu vs. Shanghai Animation Film Studio, involving attribution of copyright of the cartoon character “Huluwa” (lit. "Calabash Babies"); Han Han vs. Beijing Netcom Science & Technology Co., Ltd, involving copyright infringement; Zhejiang’s Holley Communications infringement case vs. Shenzhen’s Samsung Kejian Mobile Communication Technology Co., Ltd, involving a patent invention dispute; Zhang Chang, Zhang Hongyue, Nirenzhang Arts Development Co., Ltd vs. Zhang Tiecheng, Beijing Nirenzhang Bogu Clay Factory and Beijing Nirenzhang Arts & Craft Co., Ltd, involving unfair competition dispute; Yaoming vs. Wuhan Yunhedasha Sporting Goods Co., Ltd, involving infringement of moral rights and unfair competition.
  
   Adjudication of intellectual property-related administrative actions further the support and supervision of administrative authorities to ensure lawful operations
   In 2012,by granting and validating intellectual property rights and judicial review of administrative enforcements, the people’s courts have streamlined and improved upon the review criteria for granting and validating intellectual property rights, and in regulating administrative operations for matters relating to intellectual property.
   The local courts accepted 2,928 intellectual property-related administrative cases of first instance, 20.35% more than last year, and closed 2,899 cases, 17.37% more than last year. Of those accepted, the breakdown by intellectual property branch and percentage change compared to last year is: 760 patent cases, 16.21% higher; 2150 trademark cases, 21.68% higher; 3 copyright cases, 50% higher; 15 cases of other categories, 50% higher.
  The number of first instance cases involving foreign parties or Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan parties continued to account for a large percentage of the cases. Total number of cases was 1,349, representing 46.53% of the concluded intellectual property-related administrative cases of first instance; 1,127 of the above cases involved foreign parties, 109 Hong Kong parties, 0 Macao parties and 113 Taiwan parties.
  Total intellectual property-related administrative cases of second instance accepted and concluded by the local courts was 1,424 and 1,388 respectively. Of the concluded cases, 1,225 were affirmed, 118 reversed, 3 remanded for retrial (chongshen), 22 withdrawn, 15 dismissed; in 1 case, the original ruling was revoked and an order issued to docket the case for hearing; 4 other cases were disposed of through other methods.
   SPC accepted 98 intellectual property-related administrative cases and concluded 98. Of the concluded cases, 70 cases or 72.16% were dismissed; tishen orders (similar to certiorari) were issued for 20 cases or 20.41%, 2 cases or 2.04%were ordered to reopen (zaishen); 5 cases or 5.10% were withdrawn; 1 case or 1.02% was disposed through other methods.
   SPC reviewed 24 tishen cases and concluded 22. Of those concluded, SPC affirmed the original decision for 5 cases, or 22.73%; reversed the decision for 16 cases, or 72.73%. 1 case, or 4.55%, withdrew.
   High profile administrative cases include: Wei Tingjian vs. Tiansi Pharmaceutical & Health Co., Ltd, Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration of Industry & Commerce, involving an administrative dispute concerning the cancellation of review; Suzhou Dingsheng Food Co., Ltd vs. Suzhou Administration Bureau of Industry & Commerce, Jiangsu Province, involving the administrative sanction of infringement of the “乐活LOHAS” trademark.
   

Better leverage of criminal adjudication to sanction and prevent infringement of intellectual property
   In 2012, the people’s courts have stepped up the criminal enforcement of intellectual property to sanction and prevent infringement of intellectual property.
   For intellectual property-related criminal cases of first instance handled by local courts, new filings increased by 129.61% to 13,104 cases, including 7,840 intellectual property infringement cases (4,664 involved infringement of registered trademarks, such as use of counterfeit marks), 150.16% higher than last year; 2,607 were intellectual property infringement cases involving the crime of production and sale of fake or inferior goods, 236.82% higher than last year; 2,587 were intellectual property infringement cases involving the crime of illegal business operations, 48.08% higher than last year; 70 were cases of other nature, 34.62% higher than last year.
  The number of intellectual property-related criminal cases of first instance concluded by the local courts has increased by 132.45%, to 12,794 cases. The number of persons against whom judgments were effective totalled 15,518, 54.33% higher than last year, including 15,338 who were given criminal sanctions, year-on-year increase is 94.35%. Of the concluded cases, 7,684 involved infringement of intellectual property; 2,504 involved production and sale of fake and inferior goods (involving intellectual property infringement); 2,535 involved illegal business operations (involving intellectual property infringement); 71 were of other nature (involving intellectual property infringement).
  In cases where the offender was found guilty of intellectual property infringement, 2012 cases were convicted of counterfeiting a registered trademark; 1,906 were convicted of selling goods bearing a counterfeit trademark; 615 were convicted of illegally manufacturing or selling illegally manufactured counterfeit marks; 63 were convicted of patent counterfeiting; 3,018 were convicted of copyright infringement; 27 were convicted of selling infringing reproductions; and 43 were convicted of infringing upon trade secrets.
  A high profile case involved the copyright infringement of an online game through a private server.
  
  Combined Mediation and Adjudication to resolve disputes in response to the need to build a harmonious society
   In 2012, the people’s courts continued to broaden the use of mediation for intellectual property disputes, so as to manage conflicts and maintain social harmony and stability.
   First, better aligned the adjudication-mediation processes, where improvement is made in the bridging and balance of adjudication with people’s mediation, administrative mediation and judicial mediation in resolving intellectual property disputes.
  The Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region’s High People’s Court worked with the region’s various authorities, including the intellectual property bureau, industry and commerce bureau, press & publication bureau and cultural office, to clarify the bridging of the pre-trial mediation and litigation procedure, as well as systems as “mediation by invitation” (yaoqing tiaojie) and “mediation by appointment” (weituo tiaojie) during the trial process.
  The Hunan High People’s Court had relied upon the results of its Study on the Judicial Affirmation of Mediation Agreements for Administrative Actions to initiate a pilot study on judicial affirmation of mediation agreements for administrative cases of patent disputes at Changsha Municipality’s Yuelu District People’s Court.
  The Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court had entered into an Agreement on Alignment of Adjudication and Mediation Processes for Intellectual Property Disputes with the Fuzhou customs authority and industry & commerce bureau.
   The courts in Tibet, and Hebei, Henan, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Sichuan, Guangdong and Hainan provinces also prioritised the development and improvement of a multifarious dispute resolution mechanism, and in the creation and positive development of a “three-in-one” mediation structure that integrates judicial mediation, people’s mediation and administrative mediation.
  Second, formulate more innovative mediation methods. To benefit from the professional expertise of industry associations and technical experts, the courts have explored a multi-prong mediation strategy, comprising “mediation by invitation”, “industry mediation” and “expert mediation”. The Beijing courts have established a dispute resolution mechanism comprising mediation strategies “mediation by invitation” and “cooperative practice” by working with entities such as the mediation centre of the Internet Society of China, China Writers’ Association and the Beijing Intellectual Property Bureau. The Zhejiang High People’s Court has also explored the possibility of establishing a mechanism for mediation by appointment, targeting at civil patent disputes. The Xinjiang Autonomous Region High People’s Court has invited technical experts to assist in the mediation for intellectual property cases.
  Third, focused on mediation of related cases, and guided the parties to re-channel their resentment from infringement into energy for business cooperation. The Jiangsu Province High People’s Court has assessed the circumstances of related cases in the Karaoke industry and have organised several seminars for copyright owners, copyright collective management organisations, representatives of Karaoke bar owners and the relevant authorities to address at source the many issues in copyright disputes in the Karaoke industry. For high profile intellectual property disputes with related cases, the Guangxi Province High People’s Court organised discussions at the local level with the parties, lawyers and the industry’s regulatory authority.
  The people’s courts have made remarkable progress in mediating intellectual property disputes. 70.26% of first instance intellectual property-related civil cases withdrew after mediation. The success in mediating the highly publicised dispute between Apple Inc. and Proview Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd involving the “IPAD” mark was highly commended at home and abroad.
   
   Greater judicial openness for improved credibility to address public concerns
  In 2012, the people’s courts have employed various methods and approaches when adjudicating intellectual property disputes, and have increased openness and implemented open hearing.
   First, the open intellectual property court includes circuit trials, live online telecast of court hearings, invitation of deputies of people’s congresses, members of people's political consultative conferences and members of the public to observe hearings. In the anti-monopoly case of Qihoo 360 Technology Co., Ltd vs. Tencent Inc., the Guangdong Province High People’s Court invited the media and the general public to observe the case proceedings, and allowed live telecast over the micro-blog. The courts of Inner Mongolia, Henan, Jiangsu, Anhui, Hunan, Sichuan, Fujian, Jiangxi, Ningxia provinces and Xinjiang region have established a permanent system of observation of court hearings by deputies of people’s congresses and members of people's political consultative conferences, as well as online live telecast.
   Second, published written judgements of intellectual property cases to publicise the outcome of the courts’ decisions. The SPC continued to maintain the quality of the Intellectual Property Judgements in China website and the Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property sub-website under the SPC website. The high people’s courts have designated information officer responsible for uploading judgements and decisions on the websites and for maintaining the websites. Information officers must also implement web analytics, and must report and improve the web traffic. As at end 2012, 47,422 intellectual property judgements and decisions have been published on the Intellectual Property Judgements in China website.
   Third, published white papers on intellectual property protection and yearbook to present and publicise the people’s court’s adjudication operations for intellectual property cases. In April 2012, SPC released the Intellectual Property Protection by Chinese Courts in 2011 (Chinese & English Editions). In November 2012, Supreme People’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) and Ministry of Public Security (MPS) jointly published the first Yearbook on Intellectual Property Protection in China (2011), which compiles important normative documents, work summaries, statistics, research outcomes and typical cases relating to the judicial protection of intellectual property rights. The high people’s courts of Beijing, Chongqing, Shandong, Hebei, Henan, Gansu, Xinjiang, Jiangsu, Hunan, Sichuan, Guangdong, Guangxi and Hainan have each issued a white paper or blue paper outlining the judicial protection of intellectual property at the local level.

Served the Needs of Socioeconomic Development, and Implemented the National Intellectual Property Strategy
  Based on adjudication practice, the people’s courts found the appropriate points of breakthrough to serve the broader goals of socioeconomic development, and have implemented the national intellectual property strategy to ensure and enable speed and excellence in development. The courts have endeavoured as follows: first, continued extending the boundaries of the intellectual property-related adjudication function to answer the demands of economic and social development; second, persisted in reform and innovation by improving upon the intellectual property-related adjudication system and work mechanisms to address the demands of the national intellectual property strategy; third, further publicised the judicial protection of intellectual property to broaden public impact; fourth, strengthened cooperation with the administrative and law enforcement authorities to broadened the social impact of judicial protection of intellectual property; fifth, buttressed international and inter-regional cooperation to increase global impact.
  
   Continued extending the boundaries of the intellectual property-related adjudication function to answer the demands of economic and social development
   In July, to leverage the adjudicatory function as a means to intensify reform of the of scientific & technological institutions and for accelerating the establishment of a national system of innovation, SPC publish the Opinions on Leveraging the Adjudicatory Function to Provide Judicial Safeguards for Deepening the Reform of Scientific & Technological Institutions and for Accelerating the Establishment of a National System of Innovation. The Opinions noted that the people’s courts should improve upon their understanding and their sense of responsibility and of mission in providing judicial protection to serve the said objectives. The Opinions also pointed out that outcomes of intellectual endeavours should be given better protection to spur indigenous innovation and technological transcendence, that new factors should receive allocated rationally and according to law to align science and technology with social and economic development, and that centralised coordination should be strengthened to improve operations and measures, and ultimately augment judicial capacity in rendering protection.
   Thus, based on the local cultural characteristics and development of the local cultural industry, the high people’s courts of Tianjin, Inner Mongolia, Hubei, Guangdong, Guangxi and Sichuan have issued specific rules of implementation for providing judicial protection of intellectual property to facilitate development and prosperity of our socialist culture. The rules were formulated to strengthen intellectual property protection in the cultural sector, enable development of the traditional cultural sector, and provide impetus for growth of emerging creative industries. The high people’s courts of Hunan and Shanxi have developed rules of implementation for judicial protection and service for building an innovative economy, which tailored to the local state of socioeconomic development. This would drive innovation and development of science and technology, as well as strategic restructuring of the economy.
   The Jiangsu Province High People’s Court surveyed various segments of the cultural industry, such as film production, publication and distribution, Karaoke, games and animation, and intangible cultural heritage, to find out the demands for intellectual property-related judicial protection within the cultural industry. The study culminated in the Report on the Situation Analysis of Intellectual Property Protection of the Cultural Industry in Jiangsu Province, within which included 14 judicial recommendations. The Hunan Province High People’s Court reviewed the irregularities in notarial evidence in intellectual property litigation, and submitted to the local department of justice the Judicial Recommendations for Regulating the Notarisation and Preservation of Electronic Information & Evidence. The Hubei provincial courts have focused on cases involving copyright infringement of KTVs and internet cafes in the course of business operation, and submitted judicial recommendations to the local bureau of industry & commerce, copyright bureau and cultural bureau. The Huangpu District Court in Shanghai also reviewed the irregularities in authorship of movie and television productions and submitted judicial recommendations to the then-State Administration of Radio, Film & Television.
   The courts of Beijing, Shanghai, Heilongjiang, Inner Mongolia, Shandong, Henan, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Sichuan and Guizhou visited business enterprises and organised intellectual property workshops to establish a long-term contact mechanism with innovators to find out the difficulties and demands of innovators encounter in respect of intellectual property protection. This was as way to provide judicial protection and service that serve the local needs in developing innovative economies. The specific activities were:
Beijing Xicheng District People’s Court visited companies with old trade names, and to protect old trade names and intangible cultural heritage, cooperated with the relevant authorities to initiate the “Intellectual Property Protection Campaign for Old Trade Names”;
Shijingshan District People’s Court proposed the idea of “intelligent protection for CRD (zhi hu CRD) and to build a “Shijingshan Service” brand, so as to provide judicial protection and service for the distribution of goods and the cultural and creative industries under its jurisdiction;
Changzhou Intermediate People’s Court in Jiangsu Province has established a judicial protection contact point for intellectual property matters for key creative industries;
Xuzhou Intermediate People’s Court has set up an intellectual property protection base at the “Creative 68 (‘Chuang Yi 68’)” Cultural Industrial Park;
Shaoxing Intermediate People’s Court in Zhejiang Province has organised a special study on the intellectual property protection of Shaoxing yellow wine;
Hefei Hi-Tech District People’s Court in Anhui Province has completed the Analysis of the Pattern of Typical Cases Involving Copyright Disputes and Study of the Development Strategies of Cultural Industries;
Jingdezhen Intermediate People’s Court in Jiangxi Province initiated a survey of intellectual property protection of porcelain arts and crafts, and provided recommendations for the drafting of the Jingdezhen Porcelain Arts & Crafts Standard;
Hainan High People’s Court commenced studies on the adjudication of intellectual property disputes in the context of Hainan Island being a destination for international tourism;
During the Second China-EuroAsia Exposition and the Eighth China-Kashgar Commodities Trade Fair, the Urumqi Intermediate People’s Court, Shuimogou District People’s Court, Kashgar Region Intermediate People’s Court and the Kashgar City People’s Court deployed intellectual property judges to provide advisory services on intellectual property protection at exhibitions for exhibitors;
Jilin High People’s Court was invited to provide services at the “Intellectual Property Complaint Centre” of the Eighth North-east Asia Investment & Trade Exposition.
  Persisted in reform and innovation by improving upon the intellectual property-related adjudication system and work mechanisms to address the demands of the national intellectual property strategy
   In 2012, the people’s courts have continued to improve upon intellectual property-related adjudication system and work mechanisms based on the Outline of the National Intellectual Property Strategy, to advance the National Intellectual Property Strategy.
   First, promoted the pilot project of centralised adjudication of civil, administrative and criminal cases on intellectual property by the intellectual property division (“three-in-one” adjudication of intellectual property disputes), and improved upon the coordinated adjudication mechanism of civil, administrative and criminal matters relating to intellectual property, such that the overall effectiveness of judicial protection of intellectual property is given play preliminarily. As at end 2012, there were 5 high people’s courts, 59 intermediate people’s courts and 69 basic-level courts that have initiated the pilot project. There are several interesting developments:
  In 2012, the Guangdong courts have gone full steam ahead in implementing the reform pilot programme of “three-in-one” adjudication of intellectual property disputes. The provincial court, 19 intermediate courts and 30 basic-level courts have begun implementing the system, where 90% of criminal intellectual property cases were included in the pilot. The Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court has done so well in the “three-in-one” reform, and the social media has referred to its distinctive model as the “Shenzhen Model”.
  The Jiangsu High People’s Court has stepped up its study of the application of the law for criminal intellectual property matters in the “three-in-one adjudication” reform pilot programme, and has led the completion of the Summary of Issues in the Application of law in Intellectual Property Disputes (Draft for Public Opinion).
  The courts in Inner Mongolia, Shandong, Hunan, Sichuan, Fujian and Guizhou have also relied on various methods to strengthen cooperation with the administrative and law enforcement authorities to drive the “three-in-one” pilot programme for adjudication of intellectual property disputes.
  Second, continued to fine-tune the jurisdiction structure of intellectual property cases. While concentrating the adjudication of cases involving patent, well-known mark and anti-monopoly dispute in certain courts as appropriate, certain basic-level courts are given an appropriate level of authority to accept intellectual property cases. Basic-level courts are encouraged to exercise extra-regional jurisdiction, in order to create a more logical jurisdiction structure. As at end 2012, SPC has appointed 83 intermediate people’s courts to adjudicate cases involving patent disputes, 45 for new plant varieties, 46 for topographies of integrated circuits, and 44 for determination of well-known marks; 141 basic courts are given jurisdiction for general intellectual property cases.
  Three, continued improving the fact-finding mechanism for specialised technologies. The courts of all levels have explored effective fact-finding methods for specialised technology in intellectual property adjudication, which encompass forensic examination, expert assistant (zhuanjia fuzhuren) and expert assessor (zhuanjia peishenyuan) as part of the technical fact-finding system. Much effort has been taken by the courts in different regions:
  The Heilongjiang Province High People’s Court has developed the Heilongjiang Province Rules of Implementation for Consultation in Scientific & Technological Matters in Intellectual Property Adjudication; Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High People’s Court has signed a memorandum of cooperation on judicial protection of intellectual property with the region’s science and technology association, and have appointed 25 technical experts as litigation assistants; Jiangsu Province High People’s Court has outlined the method of use of expert witnesses during intellectual property litigation in the Practical Uses of Expert Witnesses in Adjudication of Intellectual Property Cases; the Urumqi Intermediate People’s Court uses expert assessors for all intellectual property cases; Beijing 2nd Intermediate People’s Court has employed the “three-member technical team, and five-member adjudication panel” to try patent cases involving complex technical fact-finding. The courts of Tianjin, Xinjiang, Hubei, Hunan and Sichuan have been actively exploring the expert technical assessor system, and have appointed experts to be lay judges to plug the specialised technical knowledge gaps of intellectual property judges.
  
  Further publicised the judicial protection of intellectual property to broaden public impact
  In 2012, the people’s courts have used the World Intellectual Property Day on 26 April as opportunity to organise a Publicity Week for the April 26 World Intellectual Property Day. Wide-ranging, comprehensive and multi-perspective publicity activities on the judicial protection of intellectual property were organised, so as to accelerate the formation of a rule of law culture for intellectual property and to widen the public impact of intellectual property judicial protection.
   On 26 April World Intellectual Property Day, SPC organised a press conference and released the Intellectual Property Protection by Chinese Courts in 2011 (Chinese & English Editions), and published the Ten Major Cases and Fifty Typical Cases on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property for 2011, and the Supreme People’s Court’s Annual Report on Intellectual Property Cases. In November 2012, SPC, SPP and MPS jointly published the first Yearbook on Intellectual Property Protection in China (2011). The local courts have captured fully the benefits of newspapers, books and magazines, publicity brochures, radio stations, television stations, broadcast networks and the internet and other media to promote the significance, judicial policies and achievements of the judiciary in protecting intellectual property, so as to nurture the awareness of intellectual property right and rule of law concept among the public.
   The high people’s courts in Beijing, Chongqing, Gansu, Xinjiang, Shandong, Hebei, Henan, Jiangsu, Hunan, Guangdong, Guangxi, Sichuan and Hainan have published their own white paper or blue paper on the judicial protection of intellectual property for 2011. During the publicity week, the Liaoning Province High People’s Court had organised a public incineration of pirated publications, and the Liaoning Television Station broadcasted a special documentary film called the Glorious Path in Intellectual Property Adjudication; the Xining Intermediate People’s Court of Qinghai Province has forged a long-term collaborative relationship with the Qinghai Television Station, which through the economic segment’s “Life and Law (shenghuo yu fa) programme, reported and publicised the court’s work in protecting intellectual property; many media, such as the Legal Daily, Dazhong Daily, Shangdong Satellite Television and Shandong Legal News have reported the intellectual property adjudication work of the courts in Shandong Province, and the People's Court Daily has also published an article entitled “Clearing the Skies for Rule of Law in Intellectual Property Rights” relating the work of the Shandong courts; the branch courts of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps have also publicised its efforts in protecting intellectual property by giving out questionnaires on intellectual property knowledge and books of the law, and by providing legal advice.
   
  Strengthened cooperation with the administrative and law enforcement authorities to broadened the social impact of judicial protection of intellectual property
   In 2012, the people’s courts have aligned as appropriately the relationship between the judicial protection and administrative protection of intellectual property, and furthered their cooperation with the administrative authorities, and have optimised the intellectual property protection regime; in doing so, they have established a synergistic force, and have continued to expand the social impact of the judiciary in intellectual property protection.
   The SPC has convened many inter-departmental meetings with the Ministry of Public Security (MPS), SPP, and SAIC to discuss draft legislative proposals for the criminal enforcement of intellectual property, study the standard of proof for criminal cases involving counterfeit and fake or inferior goods, and promoted the establishment of a case guidance mechanism for criminal adjudication intellectual property cases, so as to improve the consistency in judicial enforcement of intellectual property rights.
   The people’s courts have assisted the MPS in combating the crime of infringement of rights and counterfeiting, and have since solved 43,000 cases involving the crimes of infringement of intellectual property and of manufacturing and sale of fake and inferior goods. More than 60,000 criminal suspects were arrested, and the amount involved was 11.3 billion yuan.
   The high people’s courts of Heilongjiang, Shaanxi etc. have signed a Memorandum of Cooperation on Strengthening Intellectual Property Protection with the administrative and law enforcement agencies, such as the provincial intellectual property bureau, the copyright bureau, industry & commerce bureau, to work together in protecting and managing intellectual property. The Guizhou High People’s Court has stepped up its cooperation and coordination with the relevant authorities, such as the provincial intellectual property bureau, industry & commerce bureau, food and drug administration, the cultural regulatory authorities and the public security department, to find ways to establish a long-term mechanism jointly enforced by the judiciary and the administrative authorities, to protect intellectual property rights involving the cultural heritage of Guizhou’s ethnic minorities, geographical indications, and traditional Chinese medicine. The high people’s courts of Ningxia, Anhui, Hebei, Henan and Guangxi have also taken an active role in adopting various ways to strengthen communication, coordination and cooperation with administrative authorities as the intellectual property bureau, copyright bureau, and industry & commerce bureau, to facilitate positive interaction between the judiciary and administrative law enforcement authorities for a powerful and synergistic force in intellectual property protection.
   
  Buttressed international and inter-regional cooperation to increase global impact
  In 2012, the people’s courts have continued to adopt an international perspective, and have broadened the avenues and format to strengthen international and regional exchanges. These are ways to dispel misunderstandings, build trust, and facilitate cooperation, to continue expanding the international impact of China in respect of judicial protection of intellectual property.
  In May, the China-United States Intellectual Property Adjudication Conference was held in Beijing. More than 1,200 participants, including representatives of intellectual property judges from China and the United States, government officials, academics, lawyers, representatives of intellectual property owners, attended the seminar. More than 240 intellectual property judges from China were at the conference; the United States sent a delegation of more than 200 people, including seven judges from United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and president of the Federal Circuit Bar Association. Twenty-six topics, including “Macro Issues concerning Intellectual Property Adjudication” and “Contribution of Court to the IP System”, were discussed in depth and extensively, with 143 speaking at the conference. The conference reflected the sincerity and goodwill on the part of the Chinese and the Americans to share and cooperate for the future in the increasingly globalised world, and was indeed a milestone in intellectual property relations between the two countries.
  SPC has responded positively by sending representatives to participate in activities as the China-US Intellectual Property Work Group Meeting, the China-Europe Intellectual Property Work Group Meeting, the Cross-Straits Intellectual Property Agreement Work Group Meeting, and the intellectual property public relations team that visited the United States etc, and have prepared more than thirty sets of work plans and recommendations that showcased our achievements in intellectual property protection. SPC judges have also received nearly one hundred high level delegates from the United States, the European Union, Japan and Korea, and have responded to the concerns for their foreign visitors, clarified misunderstandings, and shared our practices and achievements in intellectual property protection. They have also corrected misconceptions of a handful of countries in our intellectual property protection regime. SPC has also sent some of its intellectual property judges as participants in international intellectual property meetings in countries as the United States, Ireland and Korea.

Increased adjudication supervision and guidance, and ensured consistency in application of law
  The people’s courts have stepped up adjudication supervision and operational guidance for intellectual property cases, unified the judicial standards and improved the quality of adjudication. First, judicial interpretations were strengthened, judicial policies improved, and exercise of discretion during adjudication unified; second, the ways of providing supervision and guidance were broadened to improve the quality of adjudication; third, research and analysis was stepped up to resolve promptly any emerging or difficult problems in application of law.
  
   Strengthened judicial interpretation, improved judicial policies and unified exercise of discretion during adjudication
   In May, SPC released the Provisions on Issues Relating to the Application of the Law in Adjudicating Civil Disputes Arising from Monopolistic Behaviour. This was the first judicial interpretation pertaining to anti-monopoly that SPC has issued, providing for initiation of action, accepting a case, jurisdiction, distribution of burden of proof, evidence in litigation, civil liabilities, statutory limitation etc. It was essential for guiding the courts in applying the Anti-Monopoly Law correctly to stop monopolistic behaviour according to law and to ensure fair competition.
   In December, SPC issued the Provisions on Issues Relating to the Application of the Law in Adjudicating Civil Disputes Involving the Infringement of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information. This was a judicial interpretation that provided for the principles on which discretion is exercised in cases involving infringement of the right to network dissemination of information, determination of infringement behaviour, determination of joint-direct infringement, induced infringement and contributory infringement, and determination of objective fault on the part of the network service providers. It is an effective tool for dealing with the impact and challenges that the internet presents for the traditional protection of copyright and for ensuring the correct application of the Copyright Law.
   In February, Xi Xiaoming, Vice-president of SPC gave a keynote speech at the first workshop for presiding judges of intellectual property divisions on the topic “Grasping Precisely the Current Policies on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property to Further Strengthen Judicial Protection for Intellectual Property”. For the first time, he gave a comprehensive explanation of how the SPC’s intellectual property tribunal has actively explored the judicial policy of “strengthen protection, classification, appropriate stringency”. These are the basic tenets on which our judicial protection of intellectual property is based. To “strengthen protection” is the necessary path, given our socioeconomic situation as well as the domestic and international environment; “classification” is the necessary requirement, given the nature and characteristics of intellectual property; “appropriate stringency” is the demand, given the implicit connection between protection of intellectual property and economic development.
   
   Broadened ways of providing supervision and guidance to improve quality of adjudication
   In 2012, the people’s courts have relied on a variety of methods, such as published guiding opinions and guiding cases, organised meetings on adjudication operations, and announcing information on major and related intellectual property cases to broaden the means of supervision and guidance to improve the quality of adjudication.
   In December, SPC has issued a notice on “Issues Regarding the Implementation of the ‘Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Amendment of the Civil Procedural Law of the People’s Republic of China’ in Intellectual Property Adjudication”. The notice highlighted the importance of implementing the Decision on Amendment of the Civil Procedural Law (“Decisions”) for intellectual property adjudication, and set forth matters as a patent agent becoming an agent ad litem in the capacity of a citizen, and correct application of the pre-trial preservation of evidence, to guide the courts in applying the Decisions correctly in the course of their intellectual property adjudication.
   The people’s courts have always attached great importance to the demonstrative and guidance function of typical cases in intellectual property adjudication. The selection and publication of typical cases are subject to a unified standard and has become part of the institutional practice over the long term. In April, SPC has selected 34 typical cases from the concluded cases in 2011, and has extracted and summarised 44 problems of application of law which are universally applicable. The problems are compiled in the Supreme People’s Court’s Annual Report on Intellectual Property Cases (2011) and published. SPC has also published the Ten Major Cases and Fifty Typical Cases on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property for 2011. Those that have also published their local versions of typical intellectual property cases or annual report were the high people’s courts of Beijing, Tianjin, Chongqing, Heilongjiang, Liaoning, Inner Mongolia, Gansu, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Sichuan, Jiangsu, Anhui, Fujian, Guangxi, Yunnan and Xinjiang.
   The Zhejiang High People’s Court has organised a province-wide work meeting on intellectual property adjudication and a seminar for presiding judges of intellectual property division for all the intermediate people’s courts within the province. These were aimed at sorting thoughts for adjudicating emerging and difficult cases, to unify the adjudication standards. The courts of Jiangsu Province have created a new approach to adjudicating related cases, and have selected related cases that are either typical or demonstrative, and have taken the initiative to organise circuit tribunals. The Shanghai High People’s Court has developed the Guidebook on Adjudicating Copyright Cases and the Several Issues in Intellectual Property Adjudication during the First Half of 2012. The Hunan High People’s Court has observed and improved upon the reporting system on case trends and information, analysis system of the quality and effectiveness of cases remanded for retrial or cases with amended judgements, and the communication system for cases remanded for retrial or cases with amended judgements, and have promptly studied and notified the courts within the province salient problems in intellectual property cases. The Heilongjiang High People’s Court has leveraged the Heilongjiang adjudication network and relied on the internet for instantaneous communication and the email to set up a guidance network for comprehensive intellectual property research to which all the courts within the province have access. The high people’s courts of Henan, Shanxi and Jiangxi have established a reporting system for related intellectual property cases to ensure consistency of judgement for the same case.
   Stepped up research and analysis to promptly resolve any emerging or difficult problems in application of law
  In 2012, the people’s courts have focused on intellectual property adjudication, and have continued to strengthen research and analysis to cope with new situations and problems, so as to resolve promptly emerging and difficult problems with application of law.
  2012 saw the amendment of six major laws, being the Patent Law, Trademark Law, Copyright Law, Civil Procedural Law, Regulations on Patent Commissioning, and Measures on Service Invention, and SPC has participated in the relevant meetings and discussions, and has closely followed the development of the law, taken note of new situation and emerging issues. It has also reviewed the judicial principles and experiences generated from its adjudicatory practice in recent years, and conducted extensive studies and analysis to propose recommendations for legislative amendments. The intellectual property division SPC has also organised special discussions on particularly salient and difficult issues, including directions for use of drugs, copyright in karaoke, copyright for drama works, and non-squatting trademark issues.
  Beijing High People’s Court have completed research outcomes as Answers to Several Issues on Adjudicating Disputes Involving the Infringement of Intellectual Property in E-Commerce, and Bench Book on Adjudicating Copyright Disputes Involving the Sharing of Video Clips etc; Tianjin High People’s Court has published the Study on Intellectual Property Protection for Technology-Based Small & Medium-Sized Enterprises; Shanghai High People’s Court has published the Study on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property to Facilitate Development of the Cultural and Creative Industries; Hunan Province People’s Court has completed the Research Report Copyright Cases on Karaoke Operators for all Courts within the Province; Jiangsu High People’s Court have commence studies as A Study on Problems Relating to Evidentiary Rules during Adjudication of Intellectual Property Cases and the Study on the Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property for the Cultural Industry; and the Hebei High People’s Court has commenced the Study on Intellectual Property Protection of Fine Ethnic Cultures.


Bolstered the Foundation of Basic-Level Courts, and Strengthened the Adjudication Team
  In 2012, the people’s courts have further consolidated the fundamental capacities of intellectual property adjudication and the basic-level courts, strengthened the capacity of the team of intellectual property judges, and drove the scientific development of intellectual property adjudication, so as to respond to the people’s concerns and expectations in intellectual property adjudication. First, the courts have strengthened the adjudication team to improve upon the adjudication regime; second, they have improved political and judicial attitudes and ways, and have strengthened the building of an incorrupt practice to advance judicial impartiality; third, enhanced capacity building of intellectual property judges to elevate judicial credibility.
  
  
  
   Strengthened the adjudication team to improve upon the adjudication regime
   The people’s courts have always given priority to establishing an intellectual property division within the courts and to building a strong team. Courts that are of intermediate-level and above have intellectual property divisions, and the 141 basic-level courts with civil jurisdiction for general intellectual property matters have also established intellectual property divisions. Intellectual property judges for all levels of courts are selected from candidates who are well-versed in the law, highly-educated, with extensive adjudication experience. This was the way to strengthen the adjudication team and to optimise the adjudication structure. As at end 2012, there were 420 intellectual property divisions across the country, 2,759 intellectual property judges, and of whom, 97.5% with at least a bachelor degree and 41.1% with at least a master degree.
Also important is the leveraging of the fundamental roles of the basic-level and intermediate courts in intellectual property adjudication. In April, SPC issued the Decision on Establishing a Research Base for the Judicial Protection of the Intellectual Property of Pharmaceutical Industry and on Increasing the Number of Demonstration Courts for Intellectual Property Adjudication and Field Study Bases and Theoretical Research Bases for the Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property. Newly added basic-level demonstration courts for intellectual property adjudication were the Beijing Haidian District People’s Court, Shanghai Huangpu District People’s Court, Guangdong Province’s Guangzhou Tianhe District People’s Court, Jiangsu Province’s Nanjing Gulou District People’s Court, and Zhejiang Province’s Hangzhou Xihu District People’s Court, bring the total number to ten. Jiangsu Province’s Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court and Hubei Province’s Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court were the new research bases for intellectual property judicial protection; also, special research bases for intellectual property judicial protection for pharmaceutical industry were established at Jiangsu Province’s Taizhou Intermediate People’s Court and Lianyungang Intermediate People’s Court, bringing the total number of research bases to nine.
  Improved political and judicial attitudes and ways, and strengthened the building of an incorrupt practice to advance judicial impartiality
  The people’s courts have always focused on developing the political attitudes and ways of intellectual property judges. In 2012, the people’s courts have pursued party-building to lead team-building and finally to achieve adjudication quality. To do that, many thematic activities were organised, such as learning and practising the scientific development concept, education sessions on the socialist rule of law concept, and entitled “People’s Judge for the People” nurture and consolidate the socialist rule of law concept in intellectual property judges, and help the judges reinforce their ideals and beliefs.
   The people’s courts have always given priority to strengthening the judicial attitudes and ways of intellectual property judges. The value pursuit is “justice for the people”. To achieve that, the courts have organised major discussions with the public and major checks on judicial attitudes and ways, so as to regulate judicial behaviour and improve on the judicial practice. In December, to implement the eight required qualities to improve the work practice and to regulate judicial actions as set forth by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, SPC published a notice pertaining to the Six Measures to Improve the Judicial Practice to guide the courts to observe the following, based on their practical realities: pursue justice for the people, and maintain close contact with the public; advance judicial openness, and accept the public’s supervision; strengthen communication of the people’s opinions, and expand judicial democracy; streamline meetings and activities, and really improve upon the ways that meetings are conducted; simplify documented reports, and really improve upon the ways that documents are prepared; improve research studies, and improve the effectiveness of research studies. These were the six areas that were worked on to achieve better attitudes and ways on the part of the judiciary.
The people’s courts have always given priority to building a clean and uncorrupted judicial practice among intellectual property judges. In 2012, the people’s courts have launched moral education programmes promoting incorrupt judicial practice, addressing problems with temporary and permanent solutions, but focusing on the root of problems. Moral education aims to help elevate the moral integrity of intellectual property judges and be conscious of resisting moral depravity. The courts of various levels have stepped up the creation of a corruption risk prevention and control mechanism to realise the “five strict prohibitions and the various anti-graft systems. Anti-corruption ombudsman, recusal of judges, anti-interference of case operations by internal officers, anti-conflict of interest etc. are anti-graft measures, which are internal supervisory efforts aimed at improving judicial powers at work.

   Enhanced capacity building of intellectual property judges to elevate judicial credibility
The people’s courts have always place great emphasis on strengthening capacity-building among intellectual property judges. In 2012, the people’s courts have adopted a multi-prong approach, and have developed learning-based adjudication divisions, held trainings, organised seminars, initiated the hearing-cum-written judgement “double evaluation system”, to put together a team of high quality and professional intellectual property judges. This was a practical way to improve ability and quality of intellectual property judges in applying the law and in resolving practical problems.
In February, SPC held the first National Workshop for Presiding Judges of Intellectual Property Divisions. All presiding judges from the high people’s courts, intermediate people’s courts and basic-level courts having jurisdiction for intellectual property cases were at the workshop. More than 230 participants were at the meeting. Local experts from the State Council Legislative Affairs Office, the State Intellectual Property Office, and Renmin University of China, and foreign experts from the United States Federal Circuit were invited to give keynote addresses, during which the basic intellectual property regime as well as the most discussed and difficult issues were discussed extensively. In September, SPC held a training course on intellectual property adjudication practice at the National Judges College, where more than 2oo intellectual property judges from across the country were trained. Famous academics and experience SPC judges were invited to impart knowledge on the adjudication practice of patent, trademark, copyright and unfair competition disputes.
SPC has organised more than ten seminars, including “Seminar on the Foremost Intellectual Problems”, “Seminar on the Protection of Copyright on the Internet and Well-Known Marks”, “Forum on Intellectual Property Right of Pharmaceuticals”, “Seminar on the Protection of Intellectual Property Right in the Information Era” and “Seminar on Strengthening Protection of Well-Known Marks and Contain Illegal Trademark Squatting”. Other courts in different regions have also organised similar activities:
The Beijing High People’s Court held the “Fourth Seminar on Prime Intellectual Property Cases for Beijing Courts”; the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region High People’s Court enrolled all the region’s judges in the distant learning programme organised by the China Intellectual Property Training Centre; the Shandong courts were gearing towards the building of a learning-based party branch, where weekly discussions on hot and difficult issues encountered during adjudication of intellectual property cases were held; the Zhejiang High People’s Court has developed a training system for key adjudication personnel of intellectual property-related civil cases; the Sichuan Province courts have stepped up their training of new intellectual property judges by adopting a “one-to-one” mentoring system; the Hunan Province High People’s Court has held trainings on intellectual property adjudication, and have since trained more than 160 key adjudicators of intellectual property cases.


Conclusion
   2012 was a gainful year for the judiciary in terms of intellectual property adjudication. For 2013, the people’s courts will assess any changing circumstances and determine the new tasks ahead, and will work towards advancing their cause.
   2013 is the first year to implementing the principles as set forth at the National Congress of the Communist Party. It is also a critical year to build on the previous year’s achievements and to continue the good work in the year ahead. It is a year which offers unprecedented opportunities. The people’s courts will practise the principles of the 18th party congress and adhere to the key notions underlying the Deng Xiaoping Theory, the “Three Represents” and the Scientific Development Concept. Their goals are to build a safe country governed by the rule of law, and to “work towards ensuring that the people will experience equity and justice in every judicial case”. They work to enforce the law and adjudicate intellectual property-related disputes, initiate judicial reforms, supervise and guide, build capacity, and strengthen the fundamentals at the basic-level courts. Their ultimate aim is to serve the people, deliver justice, improve judicial credibility, and to power the building of a complete xiaokang society by providing the most effective judicial service.