A SHENZHEN wine dealer lost its appeal against a court ruling, effectively denying the dealer’s request for about 1.2 million yuan (US$192,070) in compensation for fake French wine the dealer bought at an auction in Zhuhai City, the Southern Metropolis Daily reported yesterday.

    Shenzhen BonTemps Co., which is engaged in the sale of imported wines, filed a lawsuit against Zhuhai Electromechanial Material Auction Co. Ltd. and three other government agencies last year after discovering 227 bottles of Chateau Lafite Rothschild wine it bought two years ago at the auction by Electromechanial were fake.

    The imported wines were seized by Zhuhai’s border police when they were being smuggled into the city and the auction was commissioned by Zhuhai Municipal Finance Bureau.

    BonTemps spent more than 7 million yuan on the imported wines, buying 346 bottles of Chateau Lafite Rothschild at the auction. However, 227 bottles of the wine were later confirmed to be fake. The wine dealer said it had paid about 1.13 million yuan for the 227 bottles of fake Lafite wine.

    The company destroyed a few bottles of the fake wine at a press conference Nov. 24, claiming that it wouldn’t sell fake products to its customers.

    However, Zhuhai Xiangzhou District Court ruled against BonTemps in the first trial, saying that the Shenzhen wine dealer failed to prove that the fake wine was purchased at the auction.

    The court also said that BonTemps should be held responsible for verifying the authenticity of the products before the auction, as stipulated in the auction list by Electromechanial.

    BonTemps appealed against Xiangzhou court’s ruling to Zhuhai Intermediate People’s Court, arguing that the auctioneer and the border police department failed to fulfill their obligations to show the wine dealer the products slated to be auctioned.

    The wine dealer claimed in the appeal that Zhuhai Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau, which the border police department commissioned to conduct a sample test of the seized wine, was not a qualified agency to issue wine-authenticity certificates.

    However, at the second trial, all the defendants denied BonTemps’ accusations, saying that they strictly followed the auction procedures and that the wine dealer should be responsible for its purchases.

    (Wei Jie)