南橋好倒楣, 敗在衛福部的爛英文

明明就南橋有問題吧

這次查查並發現一堆開假發票逃稅

應一網打近

明明是吃的怎不填吃的???

praetorian0828 wrote:
事實是南橋在海關報關...(恕刪)


我也認為衛福部有必要派人去澳洲搞清楚,
看澳洲出口的各廠商油品種類,
以及每種油品出口的名義怎麼寫
另外,所謂的精煉後可食用,請問這個精煉的標準程序是什麼?南僑又做了多少?
不要利用文字定義來轉移焦點

重點在於有沒有送驗

有沒有檢驗報告

給人食用的為何當初進口時

沒有檢驗及報告
爭英文翻譯有意義嗎?

重點是為什麼當初南橋不走食品的通關程序?


saloonil wrote:
真是冤枉呀, 就因為...(恕刪)


如果南僑內部知道是英文的差別.怎麼會讓董事長說成是 "承辦人員寫錯了". 直接說那是食品產業用油就好了

他們不是搞不清楚 就是故意那樣寫

PS.英文會錯 那中文呢 中文的用法可清楚多了
不是都喬好了,你出來頂3天,包準你沒事
問題在於你南橋第一時間開記者.說的是自己誤植.寫錯了...

如果說衛福部官員不懂英文.難道你南橋的負責進口部門都不懂英文?

還要澳洲來信提醒.現在只是在玩文字遊戲.而且南橋的中文文件上寫著可是工業用..

這就耐人尋味了..既然自己訂的是食用級牛油.為何要在中文文件上寫工業級牛油?

只是為了免受檢驗縮短時間而已?甚至到南橋場內稽查.連工業用的標籤都還沒撕掉..

結果現在說自己訂的是食用級的.是官員不懂英文?
蒼之無行 wrote:
不是都喬好了,你出來...(恕刪)


是喔?台灣喬王王柯都喬好囉?
那還吵什麼,陳老先生放心啦~
jimmywu97 wrote:
The proclamation of Australia Agriculture Department is totally irrational about the misuse of the terms "Industry and Industrial Use"! Do not just try to fool people who do not use English as native language.
...(恕刪)


This is the "Australian Office Statement"
In this statement,
http://www.australia.org.tw/tpei/home.html

The Australian Government Department of Agriculture has investigated and has confirmed the five shipments that were the subject of Taiwan authorities’ enquiry met the requirements of the certificate agreed on 13 August 2014 with Taiwan’s Food and Drug Administration for unrefined edible tallow (Declaration and Certificate for Shipments of Tallow for Further Processing). Should it have been a requirement at the time of export, the Department would have certified this product using this certificate. That is, they were suitable to export for use in food production.

Please noted " they were suitable to export for use in food production"

jimmywu97 wrote:
The proclamation of Australia Agriculture Department is totally irrational about the misuse of the terms "Industry and Industrial Use"! Do not just try to fool people who do not use English as native language.
There is NO definite difference between INDUSTRY AND INDUSTRIAL according to Webster Dictionary online ...(恕刪)

Australian Government responsed to this event, and made a clear definiation for"“Industry Use”

The Australian Government Department of Agriculture also says:
The use of words “for Industry Use” need not connote a non-edible product as it may relate to use in the food or any other industry. This unfamiliar English usage may have given rise to some misunderstanding. “Industry Use” is not the same as “Industrial Use”.

Every industry has its own set of terms and regulations. we can't regard it as common "words", defined the meaning of words only by look up the Dictionary.

Please look at more than one definition when you look up words in the dictionary.
文章分享
評分
評分
複製連結
請輸入您要前往的頁數(1 ~ 16)

今日熱門文章 網友點擊推薦!