Articles 1, 3 and 4 of the Customs Smuggling Control Act provide for anti-smuggling and control rules in respect of the smuggling or declaration of imported cargoes. According to the first part of Article 5 of the Trade Act, the government may prohibit or control trading activities with specific countries or regions pursuant to statutory procedure for the purpose of national security. The competent authority is also authorized under Article 11 of said Act to impose restrictions on the import or export of goods “for the needs of national defense, social security, culture, hygiene, environmental and ecological protection or policy.” In addition, Article 35-II of the Act Governing Relations between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area clearly provides, “Except as otherwise approved by the competent authority, no business dealing may be conducted between any entities of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area.” Thus it is made known that the government may prohibit or restrict trading activities with specific countries or regions for such policy purposes as the preservation of national security and normal development of economy and trade. The enforcement of the foregoing provisions hinges on the determination of the country of origin for imported goods. If importers of the goods are allowed to make untrue declarations of the country of origin, then the national trade control policy will certainly become very difficult to implement. Therefore, in respect of the punishment regarding the false declaration of the country of origin for imported cargo, it deeply concerns the enforcement of the customs’ anti-smuggling activities, trade control and other related rules, which is not only made clear after examining the aforesaid relevant provisions of the Customs Smuggling Control Act, the Trade Act and the Act Governing Relations between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, but also is essential to the enforcement of the laws and regulations concerning the customs’ anti-smuggling activities and trade control. As such, it is consistent with the legislative intent of the Customs Smuggling Control Act and, insofar as it does not the aforesaid boundary, it is not in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution. As for the punishment provided in Articles 36 and 37 of the Customs Smuggling Control Act, an actor’s liability should still be conditioned upon his or her intention or negligence. It should also be pointed out that, in this respect, J.Y. Interpretation No. 275 shall apply.