Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
A foreign tobacco company was fined $300,000 TWD for failing to list nicotine and tar levels on its cigarette imports. The company petitioned the court for a review of the constitutionality of Article 8 (1) of the Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act, which required tobacco suppliers to list nicotine and tar levels on packaging.
While the court found that the labeling requirement did impinge on freedom of expression, the court held that the restriction was minor and was appropriate to protect public health. The court also held that Article 8 did not violate the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.