Group 1 - The Supreme People's Court has released a second batch of five typical cases related to administrative enforcement involving enterprises, aiming to protect the property rights and legitimate interests of market entities and prevent similar administrative violations [1][2] - The cases highlight the court's efforts to resolve administrative disputes effectively and ensure the implementation of the Central Committee's decisions on the development of the private economy [1][3] Group 2 - In the case of a traditional Chinese medicine company against the Xiangtan Market Supervision Administration, the court ruled that the prolonged seizure of goods exceeded the legal time limit, confirming the administrative action as illegal [2][3] - The court emphasized the importance of strict regulatory standards and the need for administrative agencies to act within their legal authority, thereby protecting public health and safety [3] Group 3 - A plastic products factory challenged the fire safety authority's order to cease operations due to safety violations, leading to a ruling that the authority lacked the legal basis to enforce such measures [4][6] - The court's decision reinforced the need for administrative bodies to adhere to legal procedures and protect the rights of businesses [7] Group 4 - A media company contested the forced demolition of its rooftop advertisement by the local enforcement agency, which was deemed illegal due to the lack of proper legal procedures [8][9] - The ruling highlighted the necessity for administrative bodies to respect existing licenses and provide compensation when revoking permits [10][11] Group 5 - A cultural dissemination company faced forced demolition of its bus stop facilities, which the court ruled as illegal due to the absence of legal grounds and failure to follow due process [12][13] - The case underscored the principle of protecting the trust interests of enterprises and the requirement for administrative agencies to consider prior agreements and investments [14] Group 6 - A small lubricant technology company was subjected to a fine for false advertising, but the court recommended against enforcement due to the company's status and lack of revenue [15][17] - The case illustrates the balance between punishment and education in administrative enforcement, particularly for small enterprises, promoting their healthy development [18]