Conclusion: when a foreigner is punished under public-security law for using drugs, exit measures are often applied at the same time — at the lighter end a departure order, at the heavier end repatriation (no entry for one to five years); expulsion means no entry for ten years. The penalty decision can be challenged in court, but repatriation can only be reconsidered, and reconsideration is final.
This report checks 9 groups of current statutory provisions word for word (the Public Security Administration Punishments Law, the Exit and Entry Administration Law, administrative regulations and ministerial rules), searches and checks 17 published judgments (including 1 Supreme People's Court retrial review ruling and 1 People's Court Case Database case), and adds 3 influential publicly reported cases.
Foreign-related · exit-entryPublic-security penaltiesDrug-use penalties17 full judgmentsReport date 2026-09-12Scope and exceptions as set out in the text · page structure updated 2026-09-19 · statute check dates in the text
1. Drug use is a public-security violation in China — "it's legal where I come from" doesn't help. Article 84 of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law (revised 2025, effective 1 January 2026; previously Article 72(3)) penalises taking or injecting drugs; Article 357 of the Criminal Law expressly includes cannabis and cocaine as "drugs". Legal use abroad does not change the classification in China.
2. For foreigners, a drug penalty often "comes with" an exit measure. Article 10(2) of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law allows a departure order or expulsion to be added for foreigners who violate public-security administration. In (2022) 沪02行初177号, found in this search, the person's drug use was "relatively minor" and fined only RMB 300, but a departure order was still added, and the court found it "correctly applied the law and was an appropriate exercise of discretion".
3. Repatriation = no entry for one to five years from the date of repatriation. Article 62 of the Exit and Entry Administration Law, together with Article 63 (detention in a detention centre or repatriation facility where it cannot be carried out immediately) and Article 31 of the Regulations on the Administration of Entry and Exit of Foreigners (the deciding authority sets the specific ban period). Expulsion means ten years' ban (Article 81(3)), decided by the Ministry of Public Security, and is final.
4. Exit measures themselves cannot be challenged in court, but the penalty decision can. Article 64(1) of the Exit and Entry Administration Law provides that a foreigner dissatisfied with continued questioning, detention for examination, restriction of movement or repatriation may apply for administrative reconsideration, and the reconsideration decision is final. Three rulings ((2019) 京02行初51号, (2019) 京行终3848号, (2016) 黔行申391号) show: lawsuits directly against exit measures are not accepted, and those brought more than five years later are not accepted either.
5. The test result is the main battleground, and procedural defects rarely overturn the penalty. The window for hair tests is 6 months (Article 10 of the Hair Sample Testing Standard for Drug-Involved Persons, as quoted in judgments); courts do not require the specific time and place of use to be established ((2025) 沪7101行初722号); even where samples were not stored as required, making re-testing impossible, the penalty may stand ((2023) 鄂1224行初1号). What can really change the outcome are procedural deadlines such as service ((2023) 黑行申610号: penalty declared unlawful and the reconsideration decision set aside).
6. No judgment was found overturning a penalty for "used abroad, detected in China". Within the search, no published judgment was found where the defence "the conduct took place abroad, so China has no jurisdiction" succeeded; in practice, "a positive test that cannot be reasonably explained = drug use". This is a conclusion about our search, not an exhaustive survey.
Laying out the judgments found as "argument — outcome": in these cases, defences on the facts and the testing were essentially never accepted; the only one confirmed by a court concerned a procedural deadline (service), and there is no route to court against the exit measure itself.
| Stage | Argument | Outcome | Reasoning | Case number |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Substance | The conduct took place abroad; Chinese police have no jurisdiction (territoriality) | Not upheld | No published judgment found in which this defence succeeded; in practice, "positive test + cannot be reasonably excluded = finding of use". | — |
| Discretion | Minor drug use should mean only a fine, without an exit measure | Not upheld | Found "relatively minor" and fined RMB 300, yet a departure order was added; the court found the law correctly applied and discretion appropriate. | (2022) 沪02行初177号 |
| Testing procedure | Sampling was not video-recorded, so the evidence was unlawful | Not upheld | Article 4 of the hair testing standard requires full recording only where the person refuses to give a fingerprint or signature. | (2025) 沪02行终109号 |
| Testing procedure | Samples were not stored as required, so there should be a re-test | Not upheld | Re-testing was impossible, but the on-site test report and interview records corroborated each other, so the penalty stood (procedural defect ≠ set aside). | (2023) 鄂1224行初1号 |
| Expert opinion | A false positive caused by cosmetic surgery or medication | Not upheld | The person did not prove the surgery or medication contained the substance. | (2025) 沪7101行初722号 |
| Expert opinion | The positive result was residue from use long ago | Not upheld | Ten months before the test is outside the hair-test window; treated as a defence to evade the penalty. | (2022) 沪0115行初691号 |
| Service | The expert opinion was not served within five days of receipt | Upheld | A minor procedural illegality; the lower court declared the penalty unlawful and set aside the reconsideration decision. | (2023) 黑行申610号 |
| Exit measure | Suing directly against the repatriation decision and the reconsideration decision | Not upheld | The reconsideration decision is final and outside the scope of administrative litigation; case not accepted; upheld on appeal. | (2019) 京02行初51号, (2019) 京行终3848号 |
| Time limit | Seeking a declaration against a repatriation carried out long ago | Not upheld | Lawsuits brought more than five years after the act (in non-real-property cases) are not accepted. | (2016) 黔行申391号 |
| Detention period | Still held after administrative detention ended — unlawful over-detention | Not upheld | A person ordered to be repatriated whose repatriation cannot be carried out immediately shall be held in a detention centre or repatriation facility (Article 63). | (2020) 最高法行申9355号 |
Public Security Administration Punishments Law of the PRC (revised 2025, Presidential Order No. 49, effective 1 January 2026), Article 84
Whoever commits any of the following acts shall be detained for ten to fifteen days and may also be fined up to RMB 3,000; if the circumstances are relatively minor, detained for up to five days or fined up to RMB 1,000: … (3) taking or injecting drugs …
A person who takes or injects drugs may also be ordered not to enter entertainment venues and not to contact persons involved in drug offences without permission for six months to one year; violation is punished by up to five days' detention or a fine of up to RMB 1,000.
For conduct before 1 January 2026, the then Public Security Administration Punishments Law (2012 amendment), Article 72(3), applies: taking or injecting drugs — ten to fifteen days' detention and an optional fine of up to RMB 2,000; if relatively minor, up to five days' detention or a fine of up to RMB 500. All the judgments in this report applied the pre-revision provision.
Public Security Administration Punishments Law, Article 10(2)
A departure order or expulsion may additionally be imposed on a foreigner who violates public-security administration.
Exit and Entry Administration Law of the PRC (Presidential Order No. 57, effective 1 July 2013), Article 81
A foreigner who engages in activities inconsistent with the purpose of stay or residence, or otherwise violates Chinese laws or regulations and is unsuitable to continue staying or residing in China, may be ordered to leave within a time limit.
Where a foreigner violates this Law and the circumstances are serious but not a crime, the Ministry of Public Security may expel the foreigner. The Ministry's expulsion decision is final.
An expelled foreigner may not enter China for ten years from the date of expulsion.
The provision says "may", and "serious circumstances" is for the police to judge; but in practice, once a foreigner receives a public-security penalty for drug use, a departure order is added very often (the group A case in this report is an example: "only a RMB 300 fine, yet a departure order was added").
Exit and Entry Administration Law, Article 62
A foreigner may be repatriated in any of the following cases: (1) ordered to leave within a time limit but failing to leave in time; (2) falling within a situation where entry is not permitted; (3) illegal residence or illegal employment; (4) needing to be repatriated for violating this Law or other laws or administrative regulations. … A repatriated person may not enter China for one to five years from the date of repatriation.
Repatriation is the most common exit measure in this case study; the accompanying entry-ban period is set by the deciding authority. Regulations on the Administration of Entry and Exit of Foreigners (revised 2025, State Council Order No. 814), Article 31: the authority deciding on repatriation shall set the specific period during which the person may not enter; Article 32: the costs of repatriation are borne by the person.
Exit and Entry Administration Law, Article 63
A person under detention for examination, or ordered to be repatriated where repatriation cannot be carried out immediately, shall be held in a detention centre or repatriation facility.
Articles 60–61 set out when detention for examination applies and its duration; Article 246 of the Provisions on Procedures for Handling Administrative Cases by Public Security Organs (MPS Order No. 149) sets out the approval procedure for repatriation (approval by the head of a public security organ at county level or above, or of the border inspection authority).
Exit and Entry Administration Law, Article 64
A foreigner dissatisfied with continued questioning, detention for examination, restriction of the scope of activities or repatriation imposed under this Law may apply for administrative reconsideration according to law, and the reconsideration decision is final.
The preceding paragraph applies to other persons from outside the mainland who apply for reconsideration of repatriation imposed under this Law.
The corresponding procedural rule is Article 249 of MPS Order No. 149, with the same wording. Note the distinction: public-security penalty decisions such as fines and administrative detention can themselves be challenged in court (the group A case is such a lawsuit), but repatriation itself cannot.
Exit and Entry Administration Law, Articles 21, 25 and 31
Article 21: a visa shall not be issued to a foreigner who: (1) has been expelled or ordered to be repatriated and the entry-ban period has not expired; … (3) may endanger China's national security and interests, disrupt public order or engage in other illegal or criminal activities; (4) has practised fraud in the visa application or cannot guarantee the costs of staying in China; … (6) other situations where the visa authority considers a visa inappropriate. The visa authority need not give reasons for refusal.
Article 25: a foreigner shall not be permitted to enter if: (1) not holding a valid exit-entry document or refusing or evading border inspection; (2) falling within items (1) to (4) of Article 21(1); (3) likely to engage in activities inconsistent with the visa type after entry; (4) other situations where laws or administrative regulations prohibit entry.
Article 31: a residence permit shall not be issued to a foreigner who: (1) holds a visa of a type that does not qualify for a residence permit; (2) practised fraud in the application; (3) cannot provide the required supporting documents; (4) has violated Chinese laws or administrative regulations and is unsuitable to reside in China; (5) other situations where the issuing authority considers a permit inappropriate.
See also Article 21 (refusal of visa, stay and residence applications), Articles 34 and 35 (declaring visas and stay / residence documents void, cancelling and confiscating them) of the Regulations on the Administration of Entry and Exit of Foreigners (revised 2025). Article 5(1) of the State Council Provisions on Exit and Entry Administration (State Council Order No. 841), effective 15 September 2026, provides that a person from outside the mainland who provides false materials or false statements may be banned from entry for one to five years.
Criminal Law of the PRC, Article 357
"Drugs" in this Law means opium, heroin, methamphetamine (ice), morphine, cannabis, cocaine and other narcotic and psychotropic substances controlled by the state that can cause addiction.
So "legal use abroad" does not change the finding of illegality in China; e-cigarettes containing synthetic cannabinoids are also controlled (see (2022) 沪0115行初691号).
Provisions on Drug Testing Procedures (revised 2016, MPS Order No. 141, effective 1 January 2017), Articles 8 and 9
Article 8: collection, submission and testing of samples by public security organs shall be carried out by two or more staff; urine samples from women shall be collected by female staff.
Samples testing positive on site shall be stored separately in two dedicated A and B containers, numbered, sealed with the signatures of the collector and the person tested, kept in suitable conditions, and retained for not less than six months.
Article 9: an on-site test shall produce a test report signed by the tester and stamped by the public security organ or its branch. The result shall be told to the person on the spot, who shall sign the report.
The hair-test window: Article 10 of the Hair Sample Testing Standard for Drug-Involved Persons (as quoted in judgments) — a positive result in hair within 3 cm of the root shows the person took drugs within 6 months before the sample was taken. This report presents it as quoted in the judgments.
The only published judgment found in this search that shows the full chain "foreigner uses drugs — public-security penalty — added exit measure".
A foreigner (the plaintiff) tested positive for Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid in urine and was found to have taken drugs; under Article 72(3) and Article 10(2) of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law and Article 81(1) of the Exit and Entry Administration Law, the police found the violation relatively minor, fined RMB 300 and added a departure order. The court held that "fining the plaintiff RMB 300 together with a departure order correctly applied the law and was an appropriate exercise of discretion", and dismissed the claim.
These cases do not involve drugs, but fully show the remedies available to a foreigner dissatisfied with exit measures (reconsideration final, no lawsuit), time limits for suing, and where repatriation sits among the coercive measures.
A US student, Sun Diwen, was found after overstaying in China for 216 days and given 14 days' administrative detention. Relying on Article 78(1) of the Exit and Entry Administration Law and the penalty discretion benchmarks (overstaying 60 days or more is "serious"), the court upheld the penalty and confirmed the jurisdiction of the police where the violation occurred and the powers of the reconsideration body. The penalty was upheld on appeal and on Supreme People's Court retrial review.
First-instance judgment upheld. The judgment expressly refers to Article 14(3) of the Penalty Discretion Benchmarks for Violations of the Exit and Entry Administration Law and the Beijing exit-entry penalty discretion benchmarks: overstaying ten (eleven) days or more is "serious", punishable by a fine of up to RMB 10,000 or five to fifteen days' detention.
The Supreme People's Court dismissed the retrial application. It confirmed that 14 days' administrative detention for overstaying 216 days complied with the law; rejected the arguments that "no interpreter was provided" and "he was held beyond the end of detention"; and cited Article 63 of the Exit and Entry Administration Law that a person under detention for examination or ordered to be repatriated whose repatriation cannot be carried out immediately shall be held in a detention centre or repatriation facility.
The person sued over a repatriation decision and the reconsideration decision; the court refused to accept the case under Article 64(1) of the Exit and Entry Administration Law: a foreigner dissatisfied with continued questioning, detention for examination, restriction of movement or repatriation may apply for reconsideration, and the reconsideration decision is final — so the dispute is outside the scope of administrative litigation.
The refusal to accept the case was upheld: "a lawsuit against a reconsideration decision that the law expressly makes final for the administrative authority is outside the scope of administrative litigation in the people's courts" — further confirming that disputes over repatriation end with final reconsideration and cannot be litigated.
In a lawsuit over the repatriation in July 2003 of a Myanmar national and her daughter, the court held under Article 46 of the Administrative Litigation Law that lawsuits in other (non-real-property) cases brought more than five years after the act are not accepted; dismissal was correct and the retrial application was rejected. Illustrates the time limit for challenging exit measures.
A person harboured in their home for over two months a Vietnamese national who "was barred from entry and had already been repatriated"; the court found it serious and upheld ten days' administrative detention and a RMB 10,000 fine under Article 79(1) of the Exit and Entry Administration Law. Shows the chain "entry ban — repatriation — liability for harbouring" (the penalised party here was the host, not the foreigner).
Extradition of Bai Moujun (database case). The police placed a foreigner in detention for examination on suspicion of illegal residence under the Exit and Entry Administration Law; the holding states: "Detention for examination is a coercive measure to investigate the facts further. Once the facts are clear, repatriation or other appropriate handling should follow." A key statement for understanding where repatriation sits among coercive measures.
These cases set out the evidence and procedure rules in lawsuits over drug-use penalties. They involve Chinese nationals, but directly decide whether a test result will "stand up" in foreign-related cases.
The person was given ten days' administrative detention for taking methamphetamine. The police notified the test result more than five days after receiving the report, in breach of Article 97(2) of the Provisions on Procedures for Handling Administrative Cases; the court found a "minor procedural illegality", the lower court declared the penalty unlawful and set aside the reconsideration decision, and the retrial application was dismissed. One of the few examples in this search where a procedural defence was confirmed by a court.
Four substances — MDMA, MDA, ketamine and norketamine — were found in the person's hair; because it was "the first time caught and assessment found no addiction", the circumstances were relatively minor: five days' administrative detention, upheld on appeal. The court also rejected the argument that "sampling must be video-recorded": Article 4 of the hair testing standard requires full recording only where the person refuses to fingerprint or sign.
The police had two different testing institutions test the person's hair, and both found drug substances; the person denied drug use but produced no evidence to rebut the expert opinions, and the penalty was upheld. Applications to obtain the original test records and reagent instructions were refused.
The person used an e-cigarette containing the synthetic cannabinoid MDMB-4en-PINACA; the court found the substance had been on the Supplementary List of Controlled Non-Medical Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances since 1 July 2021, so using it was drug use; the defence that "it was residue from using a similar drug 10 months earlier" was rejected as an attempt to evade the penalty.
The police failed to store the hair sample in suitable conditions as required by Article 8(2) of the Provisions on Drug Testing Procedures, making re-testing impossible, and the court refused the re-test application; but the on-site test report and interview records corroborated each other, and the penalty was upheld. A procedural defect is not the same as setting aside the penalty.
Ketamine was found in the person's hair (detection limit 0.2 ng/mg). The defences that "repeated cosmetic surgery and flu medication caused a false positive" and that "the specific time and place of use were not established" both failed, and ten days' administrative detention was upheld. The reasoning shows that a positive expert opinion is enough to find drug use, without establishing the specific time and place.
The person used methamphetamine again (found in hair) during community-based drug rehabilitation, with two previous administrative detentions for drug use and a community rehabilitation decision on record; twelve days' administrative detention and two years' compulsory isolated rehabilitation were upheld. Shows "administrative penalty + compulsory isolated rehabilitation" combined.
Etomidate, metomidate and isopropoxate were found in the person's hair. The judgment directly cites Article 10 of the hair testing standard (a positive result within 3 cm of the root shows drug use within the 6 months before sampling) and Article 2(1) of the Guangdong enforcement guidelines on using hair test results in drug cases, finding drug use established; fifteen days' administrative detention upheld.
These three cases have no published judgment to check; the sources are official announcements, Ministry of Foreign Affairs press conferences and mainstream media. This report only relays the facts and official wording and does not cite them as case rules.
At the Ministry of Foreign Affairs press conference on 23 October 2024: "We understand that this person from Volkswagen was given 10 days' administrative detention and repatriated by the Chinese public security authorities in accordance with the law for taking cocaine." Media reports (first by Germany's Bild, followed by AFP, Reuters and AP) said the executive tested positive on returning to China from a holiday in Thailand, was detained for 10 days and was then required to leave immediately.
Note the differences in wording: the Ministry confirmed the violation as "taking cocaine", while the media reported the substance as cannabis (some reports said cannabis and cocaine); the official term was "repatriation", not "expulsion". Sources: MFA press conference transcript (2024-10-23), 21st Century Business Herald (2024-10-23), Caixin (2024-10-24).
Police announced 19 people caught for drug offences, 16 of them foreigners (7 foreign teachers at an education institution and 9 students), all testing positive in urine tests; 1 foreigner was criminally detained and the rest given administrative detention. Later reports said several of the students were sent home. Sources: CCTV.com (2019-07-10), People's Daily Online, China Youth Daily (2019-08-06).
The largest publicly reported foreign-related drug case, directly matching the "administrative detention — repatriation" combination; the reports did not disclose each person's entry-ban period.
Police announced a case of foreigners using and selling drugs: 8 caught, 5 criminally detained and 3 given administrative detention. Source: People's Daily Online (2015-05-09).
Shows the other route in foreign-related drug cases: conduct reaching the criminal threshold is handled as a criminal case (smuggling, selling, transporting or manufacturing drugs, or providing a place for drug use), while administrative detention applies to use only.
This Law applies to violations of public-security administration occurring within the territory of the People's Republic of China, except as otherwise specially provided by law.
(For conduct before 1 January 2026, Article 4 of the Law as enacted in 2005 and amended in 2012 applies, with the same wording.)
1. Territoriality is the starting point of the defence: if the violation really took place abroad, Chinese police in principle have no jurisdiction to impose a public-security penalty. But no published judgment where this defence succeeded was found in this search.
2. Courts lean towards "positive test + cannot be reasonably excluded = finding of use". (2025) 沪7101行初722号 holds that the police's failure to establish the specific time and place does not affect the finding; (2025) 粤1803行初723号 uses the 6-month hair window to infer use "within the previous 6 months"; (2023) 鄂1224行初1号 relies on the on-site test report corroborated by interview records.
3. A "used abroad" defence needs at least to pin the conduct down abroad: passport and entry-exit records, flight itineraries, foreign spending and accommodation receipts, evidence of lawful use there, etc. Also bear in mind the consequences under the exit-entry regime: this study concerns "penalty + exit measure", and success on the penalty does not automatically resolve how visa and residence authorities view the person.
4. The other realistic route is a procedural defence: in (2023) 黑行申610号, the police's failure to serve within five days of receiving the expert opinion (Article 97(2) of the Provisions on Procedures for Handling Administrative Cases) was found to be a "minor procedural illegality", and the lower court declared the penalty unlawful and set aside the reconsideration decision.
A positive result in hair samples within 3 cm of the root shows that the person took drugs within 6 months before the date the hair sample was taken.
1. Hair gives a 6-month range, not a specific day; urine tests usually cover a few days. The test itself cannot answer "when" or "where".
2. But the uncertain range does not prevent a finding: courts generally hold that a positive hair test suffices to prove "drugs were taken", and a person claiming passive intake, a false positive or medication interference must prove it ((2025) 沪7101行初722号 rejected "cosmetic surgery + flu medication caused a false positive").
3. The procedural safeguards lie in sampling and submission: collection by two or more staff, A/B samples sealed with signatures and kept for at least six months (Article 8 of the Provisions on Drug Testing Procedures); the expert opinion must be served within five days of receipt, and a re-test may be requested within three days (Article 97 of the Provisions on Procedures for Handling Administrative Cases). These are verifiable points where evidence can be fixed for a defence.
4. A sense of scale: in (2025) 沪02行终109号, four substances in hair, "first time caught, no addiction" → relatively minor, five days' administrative detention; in (2025) 粤1803行初723号, prior drug record and etomidate etc. in hair → fifteen days. The severity relates directly to prior records and addiction.
A foreigner dissatisfied with continued questioning, detention for examination, restriction of the scope of activities or repatriation imposed under this Law may apply for administrative reconsideration according to law, and the reconsideration decision is final.
1. There is no administrative litigation route against repatriation; reconsideration is the end ((2019) 京02行初51号, (2019) 京行终3848号). (2016) 黔行申391号 adds that, even where litigation is available, lawsuits brought more than five years after the act are not accepted.
2. But penalty decisions such as fines and administrative detention can be challenged in court (the group A case), and in that lawsuit the factual basis and discretion behind the exit measure can be examined too. In practice it is more valuable to do the work at the penalty and reconsideration stages: argue before the decision is made against adding an exit measure (statements and defence, explaining the legitimate grounds for stay or residence, family and work ties), rather than seeking a remedy after repatriation has been decided.
3. Knock-on issues for employers: after a foreign employee is detained and repatriated, the work-type residence permit is usually cancelled or confiscated by the police (Articles 34 and 35 of the Regulations on the Administration of Entry and Exit of Foreigners), so the employment relationship and work permit need compliant handling at the same time; penalties for illegally employing foreigners without work permits are in Article 80 of the Exit and Entry Administration Law.
| # | Case number (click for full text) | Court | Date | Level | Key point |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | (2022) 沪02行初177号 | Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court | 2023-02-15 | First instance | Foreigner, THC acid in urine: RMB 300 fine + departure order upheld. |
| 2 | (2018) 京03行初88号 | Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court | 2018-12-27 | First instance | US student overstayed 216 days: 14 days' detention upheld. |
| 3 | (2019) 京行终2302号 | Beijing High People's Court | 2019-12-26 | Appeal | Overstaying 10 (11) days or more is "serious" under the discretion benchmarks. |
| 4 | (2020) 最高法行申9355号 | Supreme People's Court | 2021-01-27 | Retrial review | Retrial refused; custody pending repatriation is lawful (Art. 63). |
| 5 | (2019) 京02行初51号 | Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court | 2019-01-18 | First instance | Lawsuit against repatriation not accepted: reconsideration final (Art. 64). |
| 6 | (2019) 京行终3848号 | Beijing High People's Court | 2019-10-15 | Appeal | Refusal to accept upheld. |
| 7 | (2016) 黔行申391号 | Guizhou High People's Court | 2016-12-16 | Retrial review | Challenge to a 2003 repatriation barred after five years. |
| 8 | (2015) 济行终字第47号 | Jinan Intermediate People's Court, Shandong | 2015-03-19 | Appeal | Harbouring a repatriated, banned foreigner: detention and fine upheld. |
| 9 | (2021) 鲁协外引1号 | Shandong High People's Court | 2021-06-24 | First instance | Database case: detention for examination precedes repatriation once facts are clear. |
| 10 | (2023) 黑行申610号 | Heilongjiang High People's Court | 2023-10-18 | Retrial review | Late service of test result: penalty declared unlawful. |
| 11 | (2025) 沪02行终109号 | Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court | 2025-07-09 | Appeal | Four substances, first time, not addicted: 5 days; no video requirement. |
| 12 | (2023) 沪02行终4号 | Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court | 2023-03-28 | Appeal | Two positive hair tests; denial without evidence fails. |
| 13 | (2022) 沪0115行初691号 | Pudong New Area People's Court, Shanghai | 2023-01-30 | First instance | Synthetic-cannabinoid e-cigarette is drug use; "old residue" rejected. |
| 14 | (2023) 鄂1224行初1号 | Tongshan County People's Court, Hubei | 2023-03-22 | First instance | Samples not stored, no re-test, penalty still upheld. |
| 15 | (2025) 沪7101行初722号 | Shanghai Railway Transport Court | 2025-09-29 | First instance | False-positive and "no time/place" defences fail; 10 days upheld. |
| 16 | (2025) 渝0106行初280号 | Shapingba District People's Court, Chongqing | 2026-04-28 | First instance | Relapse during community rehab: 12 days + 2 years' compulsory rehab. |
| 17 | (2025) 粤1803行初723号 | Qingxin District People's Court, Guangdong | 2026-03-23 | First instance | Etomidate etc. in hair; 6-month window cited; 15 days upheld. |
Text types: all 17 are published court judgments or People's Court Case Database cases — 11 administrative judgments, 5 administrative rulings (including 1 Supreme People's Court and 3 high-court retrial review rulings) and 1 database case. The full-text pages only lay out the text in paragraphs without changing it.
1. Statutory text is from public statute databases, checked word for word; versions are identified by document number and effective date, and differences between the law at the time of the conduct and current law are noted.
2. Cases come from published court judgments and public information in the People's Court Case Database; some published texts omit party information or full facts, and the full-text pages follow the public text obtained. This report only collects and presents court rules and is not a conclusive opinion on any specific case.
3. The publicly reported cases (section 5) come from official announcements, MFA press conferences and mainstream media, with sources and dates given; differences between official and media wording are noted.
4. This report maps rules where exit-entry and public-security penalties intersect; before handling a specific case, check the latest court approach and the local exit-entry authority's requirements.
5. Report completed 2026-09-12.
Wang Xin works in English and Mandarin. Phone +86-18601139509 · WeChat wang223040 · weekdays 9:00–18:00 China time (UTC+8).
Contact Wang Xin