国务院关于对海南省洋浦经济开发区海关管理问题的批复
国务院
国务院关于对海南省洋浦经济开发区海关管理问题的批复
国务院
海关总署、国务院特区办：
国务院同意《中华人民共和国海关对进出海南省洋浦经济开发区货物、运输工具、个人携带物品和邮递物品的管理办法》，由海关总署发布执行。
中华人民共和国海关对进出海南省洋浦经济开发区货物、运输工具、个人携带物品和邮递物品的管理办法
第一章 总 则
第一条 为了促进洋浦经济开发区（以下简称开发区）的建设，发展外向型经济，根据《中华人民共和国海关法》以及国家其他有关法规的规定，制定本办法。
第二条 开发区为海关监管区，海关在开发区内依法执行监管任务。开发区与非开发区（指中国境内的其他地区，下同）之间设置封闭式的隔离设施。
第三条 开发区企业应持开发区行政管理部门颁发的有效证件向海关登记备案。
第四条 进出开发区的货物、运输工具、个人携带物品和邮递物品，必须经由海关指定的通道进出。货物收发货人、物品所有人、运输工具负责人以及他们的代理人应如实向海关申报，按规定填写进出口货物报关单，并交验有关单证，接受海关检查。
第五条 开发区进口的货物仅限在开发区内使用，未经批准，严禁向非开发区转让、销售。开发区生产的产品原则上应予出口。
第六条 国家禁止的进出口货物、物品不得运入、运出开发区。
第七条 开发区企业应当按照国家有关法律、法规的规定，设置会计科目、帐簿和报表，定期列表报送海关核查。
第八条 海关对开发区内涉嫌走私人员、运输工具及有关场所，有权按照《中华人民共和国海关法》的规定进行检查。
第二章 对进出口货物的管理及税收优惠政策
第九条 开发区从境外进口的供开发区内使用的机器、设备、基建物资、生产用车辆、交通工具、办公用品，供开发区加工出口产品的原材料、零部件、元器件、燃料、包装物料，转口货物，供开发区市场销售的消费类物资，以及在开发区加工运输出境的产品，免领进出口许可证。
第十条 开发区的进出口货物，其关税和工商统一税（产品税或增值税）按下列规定办理：
（一）开发区基础设施建设所需进口的机器、设备和基建物资，予以免税；
（二）开发区企业进口自用的建筑和装修材料、生产和管理设备、生产及营业用燃料，数量合理的生产用车辆、交通工具、办公用品，以及上述机器设备、车辆所需维修零配件，予以免税；
（三）开发区行政、事业单位进口自用的数量合理的交通工具、办公用品、管理设备，比照本条第（二）项的规定办理；
（四）开发区经营交通、通讯、房地产、商业、饮食业等服务性行业所需进口的前述第（一）（二）（三）项物资予以免税；
（五）经国家主管部门批准设立的国营外币免税商场在规定的限额和品种内进口的商品予以免税；
（六）开发区企业进口专为生产出口产品所需要的原材料、零部件、元器件、包装物料，以及转口货物，予以保税；
（七）开发区进口供应区内市场的消费类物资，按规定税率减半征税，进口烟、酒应照章征税；
（八）开发区生产的产品出口，免征出口关税。
第十一条 开发区内经营转口贸易的货物应存放在海关指定的仓库、场所，并接受海关监管。转口货物经海关核准，可在仓库内进行分级、挑选、刷标志，改换包装等简单加工。
第三章 对往来开发区与非开发区之间货物的管理
第十二条 往来开发区与非开发区的货物视同进出口，应由货物的收发货人或其代理人向海关申报，接受海关检查。
第十三条 非开发区为开发区建设提供的建筑材料、施工机械等以及日常生活所需的生活资料进入开发区的，须经海关核准，并接受海关监管。
第十四条 开发区生产的产品销往非开发区，或者将开发区的进口货物运往非开发区，需经海关核准，并向海关交验国家规定的批准证件，海关按有关规定办理手续。
第十五条 开发区企业进口的料、件运往非开发区委托加工成品出口，须经海关核准。
非开发区的企业将料、件运往开发区，委托区内生产企业加工的，应办理海关手续。如需使用或消耗区内企业的进口料、件，应报经海关批准。运出开发区应办理有关进口手续。
第十六条 开发区企业使用免税进口原材料、零部件、元器件加工装配的制成品，在区内销售时，按法定税率减半征收税款；经批准运往非开发区时，由海关按照有关规定，免征或补征税款。需补征税款的制成品，发货人或其代理人对所含进口料、件的品名、数量、价格申报不清的，
海关按照制成品补征税款。
第十七条 非开发区通过开发区进出口的货物，为海关监管货物，应按照海关转关运输货物的规定管理，在海关规定的时间内，按指定的路线通过开发区。
第四章 对进出开发区运输工具的管理
第十八条 开发区的进出境运输工具，应由运输工具的所有人或其代理人向海关申报，并接受海关监管和检查。
第十九条 在开发区与非开发区之间运营的运输工具，应持海南省人民政府或其他指定的主管部门批准的证件办理登记备案手续。运输工具进出开发区时，应向海关申报，并接受海关检查。
第五章 对个人携带物品和邮递物品的管理
第二十条 个人携带进出境的行李物品和邮寄进出境的物品，应向海关申报，除国家禁止进出境的物品外，海关按规定予以查验放行。
第二十一条 个人携带行李物品从开发区进入非开发区应向海关申报，并接受海关检查，海关比照进出境旅客行李物品监管办法办理。
个人邮寄物品从开发区进入非开发区，海关比照进出境邮递物品的监管办法办理。不得从开发区往非开发区邮寄国家限制进口的物品。
第六章 附 则
第二十二条 开发区进口的减免税货物、保税货物的监管手续费，应按照《中华人民共和国海关对进口减税、免税和保税货物征收海关监管手续费的办法》办理。
第二十三条 对走私和违反海关规定的行为，由海关按照《中华人民共和国海关法》和其他有关法律、法规的规定处理。触犯刑律的，移送司法机关追究刑事责任。
第二十四条 本办法未尽事宜，按海关对海南经济特区的现行规定办理。
第二十五条 本办法的实施日期，在开发区的隔离设施经海关验收合格后，由海关总署确定。
第二十六条 海口海关应根据本办法制定实施细则，报海关总署批准后施行。
第二十七条 本办法由海关总署负责解释。
1992年7月7日
Stratic Advice on Intellectual Property Investment in Asia
苏冉
IssueⅠ: Legal framework of protection on software copyright in P.R.C and Singapore
A) P.R.C
In conjunction with China’s astonishing economic growth over the past two decades, especially after the entrance to WTO, China has steadily improved its legal framework on Software Copyright by checking and clearing large-scale regulations both in domestic and international activities.
Frankly speaking, China joined in three vital international treaties relate to copyright: the Berne Convention , TRIPs and Universal Copyright Convention. Moreover, China and US signed MOU especially for software in January 1992. All these Conventions are regarded as a milestone to reflect China’s dramatic promotion and strong determination to build a satisfactory environment for foreign software investors.
Similarly to US, P.R.C has chosen to protect software under copyright law rather than trademark, patent, or contract law. One year after Copyright Law Amendment in 2001, Chinese Council corrected its software-specific “Computer Software Protection Rules” , to deal with new problems prevailing in software protection nowadays. Under the Rule, software is defined as two particular types: computer program and their relevant documentation. Furthermore, since MOU came into force, computer software is protected as a literary work. Third, according to the conditional nation treatment here, foreigners are required to comply with “connecting factor”, to sum up, either first publication or nationality/residence of the author in China or in any of these countries ,between the work and China or a country who is a member of the WTO, or the Berne Convention. So, despite your software products first being published in US, you can still enjoy the original copyright and the legal protection on in China.
Except from the above rules, other laws also have supportive stipulation on the protection of software copyrights as follows:
(a)The General Principle of Civil Law, the country’s current basic civil law, has authorized the author’s copyright in general;
(b)The Criminal Code has a section of articles referring to piracy offences, with “Dual Punishment Principle” in front of copyright encroachment;
(c)The newly amended Foreign Trade Law (adopted in Feb).
B) Singapore
The general legal framework of software copyright protection in Singapore is almost the same as P.R.C, but with some characteristics of its own. Actually, different from P.R.C based on Civil law background, laws and litigations in Singapore are principally modeled on the English system under Common law system till nowadays. Pursuant to certain legal revolutions, modern copyright legislation contains the same international conventions as P.R.C: the Berne Conventions, Universal Copyright Convention, and TRIPs. But, Singapore signed ASEAN Framework on Intellectual Property Cooperation and the WIPO Copyright Treaty as a member of ASEAN. Turning to its domestic laws, the latest Copyright Act 1999(revised edition) is the principle one, with some other relevant regulations for enforcement. And it also definites software program into literary work under protection. In addition, Singapore owes large resources of case laws so as to make its legal conditions more particular than that in P.R.C.
The amended Act is first purposed to address issues arising from the use of copyright materials in a digital environment, especially provide legal certainty for the use of copyright in cyberspace. For instance, the extension of concept “reproduction” .Second, the Act plays another role in enhancing performer’s rights, offering two new defenses to allegations of copyright infringement. Therefore, merely surfing the Web doesn’t constitute software copyright infringement, if it’s necessary to browse. Even , Singapore passed the Electronic Transactions Act 1998 to give statutory protection of Network Service Providers. At these points, Singapore seemingly forwards a step further than P.R.C, declining its attention on encouraging the growth of a knowledge-based economy and promoting E-commerce and creative innovations. Last but the most significant point, Singapore and the United State signed a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) on May 6th 2003, and entered it into force from January 1st 2004. Virtually, this is the first FTA between US and an Asia country .So it’s doubtlessly the greatest advantage for Singapore to attract US investors, apart from other Asian countries. They would encourage the entrepreneurship, investment, job creation and growth in our own technology, science and creative industries as well as set the stage for Singapore’s emergence as a global IP hub.
Issue Ⅱ: Implementation on Software Copyright Law in P.R.C and Singapore
Sufficient and effective enforcement is more useful and practical than recorded documents, with no exception to P.R.C and Singapore.
(ⅰ)Role of Government
A)P.R.C
Learned from Annual Report on the Protection of Intellectual Property Right in China during the past 5 years by the head officer Jingchuan Wang in TableⅠ , you can see copyright administration at various levels make remarkable progress in encouraging innovation, promoting industrial development, regulating market order, and even improving the opening-up policy.
As a matter of fact, the People’s Courts, the People’s Prosecution Department, National Copyright Administration Centre and Public Security compose the backbone of the implementation of copyright law in China with civil remedies, criminal sensations and administrative punishments, such as fine. And border enforcement assistance to copyright owners by the Customs and Excise Department is also available.
TableⅠ:
The Administration on Software Copyright In P.R.C
Year Registration Prosecute Cases Resolved Cases Resolved Cases Rate Seized Pirates(M) Top 1 Region of Piracy
1999 1,041 1,616 1,515 93.75% 20.14 Shenzhen
2000 3,300 2,457 1,980 95.30% 32.60 Guangdong
2001 4,620 2,683 2,327 97.52% 61.75 Guangdong
2002 4,860 2,740 2,604 99.02% 67.90 Guangdong
2003 5,020 6,120 5,793 97.64% 73.28 Beijing
Statistics from NCAC (National Copyright Administration Centre
Fortunately, China has begun to regard software as an industry with strategic significance while formulating effective policies in areas including anti-piracy and anti-monopoly. To adapt to the legal framework, China has shifted its attention upon educating software users and strengthening the law. “Government departments are being asked to show a good example in using copyrighted software only and make software budget each year”. For example, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong buy over 3,000 software products every year through public bidding. What’s more, the National Software Government Procurement Regulation will probably act in the near future. Eventually, Chinese government is trying to treat all software companies equal in P.R.C, no matter domestic or foreign countries.
Nevertheless, given China’s vast geography and population, it would be an awesome task for the central government to manage pirating activities throughout the entire country. On the other hand, due to lack of resources, the lack of judicial expertise, the unpredictability of trial outcomes, and large costs, litigation in Chinese courts remains a risky and expensive response to Chinese copyright violations. Another administrative difficulty arises from the increasing decentralization of the Chinese government. Much of China's copyright enforcement takes place at the provincial and local levels; the national government lacks the resources and control to effectively monitor nationwide pirating activity and to impose national enforcement policies.
B) Singapore
Switching to Singapore, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) is its senior administration department, and it leads Singapore to the success in copyright infrastructure. Singapore has announced a number of meaningful standards through requirements for tough penalties to combat piracy and counterfeiting, including, in civil cases, procedures for seizure and destruction of pirated and counterfeit products, and a requirement to provide for statutory and actual damages to remedy such practices. There has been a rule in Singapore that government could only allowed to use copyrighted software since 1996. In order to obtain efficiency, Singapore maintain civil remedies and criminal penalties for circumvention of technology protection measures, and it also has in place implementation allowing for border seizures of infringing articles by customs officials. For example, the copyright infringement is punished with a maximum fine of S$100,000 or five years’ imprisonment or both. So, in comparison to P.R.C, the least time for imprisonment is shorter .But due to the judge’s free power under common law system, the court is increasingly harsh in their sentencing in respect of infringement of copyright. In other words, criminal obligation will become heavier with more limitation in Singapore.
In the contrast with Chinese administrative punishments, Singapore has a large scope of interlocutory remedies to fill in the blank area between civil remedies and criminal sensations, and they are three main types:
(a) the interlocutory injunction---It is an injunction obtained before the trail often with the main objective of maintaining the Stats quo between the parties pending the outcome of the trail. The interlocutory injunction may be in a mandatory or prohibitory form.
(b) the Anton Piller Order---It’s developed from Anton Piller KG v.Mfg Processes Ltd as a safeguard system of evidence for avoiding the defendant to destroy and hide the evidence of copyright infringement, if the plaintiff shows an extremely strong prima facie that his right are being interfered with, or the damage, potential or actual are very serious to the plaintiff, or even there must be clear evidence to proof the defendants faults.
(c) the Norwich Pharmacal Order.---The further expansion of Anton Piller Order to raise over the privilege against self-incrimination from Rank Film Distributors Ltd v. Video Information Centre Virtually . However, case law in Singapore has now established that where the privilege against self-incrimination exists, an undertaking from the plaintiff/ applicant not to use the information obtained in criminal proceedings is not an adequate safeguard for the defendant’s privilege against self-crimination. Singapore courts have also held that they don’t have the power to order that the information be inadmissible in any subsequent criminal prosecution.
Relying on common law foundation, people in Singapore prefer to a lawsuit rather than mediation while more mediation in P.R.C, once in the face of a dispute. Consequently, it would like to be more time and energy consuming somehow, for it costs at least one year of a civil procedure in the High Court of Singapore.
Last but not least, along with legsilation changes, Singapore Administration departments are also mounting a public campaign targeting both consumers and businesses to increase their awareness on the benefits and other implications of the new laws. There’s broad-based public awareness initiatives like the HIP Alliance’s year-long anti-piracy campaign? “The Real thing is the Right thing”, and brain Wave, Singapore’s first reality television show on IP.
(ⅱ)Role of Anti- Piracy Organizations
Both P.R.C and Singapore joined in Business Software Alliance (BSA) ,and WIPO several years ago and established domestic anti-piracy alliances at their own respective locality. The alliances played an active part in combating piracy and protecting the interests of right holders. They always declare laws, promulgate routine reports of current protection on TV, newspapers, and Website and show different points between pirate and authorized products. In the contrast with P.R.C, Singapore has other special disputes resolution organs under its common law system, including the small claims tribunals, E-commerce disputes centre. What’s more, Singapore collaborates with other ASAEN countries to harmonize IP rights with international and regional organizations such as the Office of Harmonization of the Internal Market (OHIM), the European Union, the French National Office of Industrial Property, and IP Australia.
(ⅲ)Introduction of Judgments in Precedent Cases
A) P.R.C
In a landmark verdict on April 16, 1996 against Beijing JuRen Computer, the Beijing No.1 Intermediate Court delivered judgment in favor of the Business Software Alliance (BSA) upholding the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights and ordering the defendant to (a) publicly apologize to the plaintiff; (b) pay over RMB600,000 (US$70,000) in damages, including court costs and accounting costs; (c) pay additional fines directly to the court. The court also ordered the defendant to undertake not to infringe intellectual property rights in the future, and the law enforcement officials to confiscate all computers and software seized during the raid on the defendant's premises. In another case, the same court rendered a judgment against Beijing Giant Computer Co. for software copyright infringement. These were the first cases decided in favor of a US plaintiff in a Chinese court.
