Article 16 of the Constitution provides that the people shall have the right of lodging complaints and instituting legal proceedings. By lodging complaints, people may seek remedies according to the procedures legally set by the nation when their rights and interests are injured by the public authority, and the agency which makes the administrative decision or its superior agency can correct the illegal or improper decision through such procedures to ensure that the laws and regulations are correctly applied and that the people’s rights and interests are protected. In accordance with Article 23 of the Constitution, such basic right shall not be restricted by law except when it is necessary to prevent infringement upon the freedom of other persons, to avert an imminent crisis, to maintain the social order, or to advance the public welfare. The provision that the administrative remedy against a decision of tax levy or imposition of a fine is conditioned on the payment of the whole or a certain percentage of the tax amount, or a fine or the furnishing of security causes the person who fails to make tax payment or furnish security to lose the remedy available under the law, which unnecessarily restricts the people’s right to institute an action and administrative appeal and is inconsistent with the Constitution. This Yuan has consistently held such opinion since J.Y. Interpretation No. 224 was made (See J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 288 and 321). Article 49 of the Act provides: “For a motion of objection, if nothing is attached or if the attached article is not sufficient to offset the fine or leviable tax, the Customs may require that a cash bond in the amount equal to one half of the originally imposed amount or the insufficient amount be paid, or security in the equivalent amount be furnished, within 14 days. Failure to make payment or furnish security within the said time limit shall subject the objection to rejection.” This provision authorizes the Customs to examine specific cases and take proper measures to prevent the person subject to the sanction from making a motion of objection expressly for the purpose of procrastinating or avoiding the enforcement. However, according to Article 49-1 of the Act, after the decision is served, the Customs may directly petition to the court for provisional seizure or preliminary injunction without furnishing security. Thus, the execution of the decision is secured. In addition, in the absence of a provision which allows the person subject to sanction to petition for temporary exemption from tax payment or furnishing security, those who are unable to pay the tax or furnish security would lose the administrative remedy. Therefore, the provision of Article 49 of the Act unnecessarily restricts the people’s right of lodging complaints and instituting actions and contradicts the intent of Article 16 of the Constitution to protect the people’s rights. Such provision shall no longer apply, and the relevant part of J. Y. Interpretation No. 211 should be revised.