instigated by this ambiguity. Such discretionary expansion is contrary to the “Principle of the Explicit Delegation,” “Principle of Legal Reservation” and “Principle of No Penalty Without a Law” set out by the Constitution, and could hardly be appropriate. Upon investigation and subsequent follow-up by the Control Yuan, the FSC indicated that it will assess the nature of any new type of financial instruments and authorize these instruments on a case by case basis, balancing the development of the securities market with the protection of investors’ interests and rights. 114. The FSC indicated that the Regulations Governing the Offering and Issuance of Securities by Foreign Issuers may serve as the basis for the presumption that TDR has been authorized by the competent authority through the exercise of its powers. Notwithstanding this contention, the authorization given by said Regulations is found to have actually been based on Paragraph 1 of Article 22 of the Securities and Exchange Act, which aims to regulate “offering and issuance,” obviously differing from the purposes stipulated in Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the same Act, which aims to regulate “types of securities.” In addition, subparagraph 7, Article 3 of said Regulations only defines the TDR nominally. Therefore, the FSC’s statement that the Regulations may serve as the basis that TDR has been authorized by the competent authority through exercise of its powers comes under suspicion of standing in contravention to the Constitution, as it is beyond the scope authorized by the law. Upon investigation and subsequent follow-up by the Control Yuan, the FSC indicated that it will assess all new types of financial instruments by balancing developments in the securities market with the protection of investor interests and rights, and will establish the related decrees authorized by the Securities and Exchange Act based on the authorized legal intent and by weighing the overall purpose of the regulatory activity. 115. Paragraph 1 of Article 21 of the Health Food Control Act expressly states that “Those guilty of manufacturing or importing health food without official approval or violating the first paragraph of Article 6 hereof should be imprisoned for not more than three years and may additionally be fined no more than NT$1,000,000.” But the Act does not expressly stipulate how a party in violation of Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the same Act should be punished. The competent authority, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, holds that the penalty imposed in Paragraph 1 of Article 21 of the same Act may also apply to a violation of Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the same Act governing “any food that is labeled or advertised as food furnishing specific nutrients or specific health care effects.” As a result, many cases brought to court by local health authorities based on the opinions given by the Ministry of Health and Welfare have been rendered to be in conflict with the law and the principle of no penalty without an applicable law has been encountered in multiple court judgments, and it is difficult for the courts to impose sentences in these cases. 49