After Being Barred from Leaving the Country: The Legal Questions Surrounding a 6,210-Yuan Ticket

March 17, 2026，Shanghai Hongqiao International Airport。

Feng Zhenghu and his wife, Ms. Chen, had completed check-in、baggage drop-off、and security screening，and were holding boarding passes for a flight to Tokyo。Flight JL082 was scheduled to depart at 1:10 p.m.，and everything was proceeding as usual。However，when they entered the exit border-inspection area，an unexpected incident suddenly occurred。

Feng Zhenghu was stopped by border-inspection officers，and taken to a reception room。The officers verbally informed him：pursuant to Article 12（5）of the Exit and Entry Administration Law，because he "may endanger national security and interests"，the relevant department of the State Council had decided to bar him from leaving the country。

There was no written notice。No advance warning。Only a verbal notification。

The round-trip tickets to Japan，together with two global travel-insurance policies，were thereby rendered unusable。The tickets cost 5,394 yuan，and the insurance premiums cost 816 yuan，for a total of 6,210 yuan——Feng Zhenghu believes that he should not have to bear this cost。Ctrip's response was：“There is no free cancellation or change waiver policy，and the booking can only be handled as a voluntary refund，with only approximately 900 yuan in taxes and fees refunded per person。”

The dispute between the two sides eventually went to court。On April 8, 2026，the People's Court of Changning District, Shanghai, acknowledged receipt of Feng Zhenghu's complaint。

I、The Moment He Was "Held Up" at Border Inspection

Looking back at every detail of the incident，Feng Zhenghu was neither "late and unable to catch his flight" nor affected by a "document defect"。He arrived at the airport on time，completed check-in、baggage check、and security screening，and received his boarding pass——the key preliminary procedures for performing an international air-transport contract had all been completed。Before this，he had purchased round-trip tickets and travel insurance through the Ctrip platform，and had both his passport and Japanese visa in order。

This retired man had, for many years previously（except during the pandemic）booked flights to Japan through Ctrip every year，with a complete and unblemished record of entering and leaving the country。He was an honest、law-abiding traveler making an ordinary trip。

However，border inspection for departure is the final statutory checkpoint in international air transport。Once this checkpoint is cut off by administrative compulsion，the purpose of the contract becomes legally and physically impossible to achieve。

Even more poignant was what happened to his wife, Ms. Chen, who was traveling with him。After witnessing the entire process of her husband being taken away and questioned by border-inspection officers，she was severely frightened and experienced acute physical discomfort, including a sharp rise in blood pressure and worsening dizziness。To protect her own health and safety，she had no choice but to give up boarding the flight。The plaintiff argues that this decision was not a voluntary cancellation，but a compelled and rational safety measure closely linked by a chain of causation to the incident involving the restriction on departure。

II、A "Voluntary Refund" or "Forced Inability to Travel"？

The core dispute in this case concerns a question of characterization：was Feng Zhenghu's failure to travel a "voluntary refund"，or a "barrier to contract performance caused by reasons unrelated to the parties' subjective intentions"？

Ctrip's response was very "standard"——it had verified with Japan Airlines and the ticketing agent that there was no free cancellation or change waiver policy，and that the booking could only be handled as a voluntary refund，with approximately 900 yuan in taxes and fees refunded per person。

But in his complaint，Feng Zhenghu presented an entirely different legal characterization：

"Voluntary refunds" generally apply when a passenger actively changes their mind for personal reasons——an emergency、inconvenience、or a decision to give up the trip voluntarily。The circumstances of this case were different：the plaintiff was forcibly prevented from leaving the country by a state organ。This was an objective、irresistible、and unforeseeable event，completely beyond an individual's control and constituting an administrative restriction backed by state coercive power。

In short——it was not that he "did not want to leave"; he "could not leave"。

This distinction has major legal significance。Under Article 563 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China and the principle of fairness，when contract performance is blocked by a circumstance that cannot be attributed to one party，that party should not bear all of the risk alone。The decision to restrict Feng's departure was made by the border-inspection authorities pursuant to instructions from relevant State Council departments and was the result of the intervention of public power。The plaintiff could not foresee it、could not change it、and could not control it。In these circumstances，the risks of air transport should reasonably be shared between the parties to the contract and upstream suppliers，rather than being passed on entirely to the consumer。

III、The "Gray Area" of Standard Terms

Even assuming for the sake of argument that Ctrip relied on the airline's rules on cancellations and changes，the application of those rules in this case would still face serious scrutiny under the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China provisions governing standard terms。

First，was the duty to draw attention to and explain the terms fulfilled？Article 496 of the Civil Code provides that the party supplying standard terms shall use reasonable means to draw the other party's attention to clauses of significant interest to it。In this case，Ctrip only verbally informed the plaintiff after the sale that the result was a "voluntary refund, with only 900 yuan per person in taxes and fees refunded"; it failed to provide the original rules in effect at the time of purchase、screenshots of the relevant page、or any evidence capable of proving that the consumer had been adequately informed at the time of the transaction。A telephone notification after the fact cannot replace advance notice at the time of the transaction。

Second，who should benefit from the interpretation of the terms？Article 498 of the Civil Code establishes the principle of interpreting standard terms against the drafter——where there are two or more possible interpretations，the interpretation unfavorable to the party supplying the standard terms shall be adopted。As a matter of common sense，"voluntary" and "forcibly prevented" are opposing concepts。Does "voluntary refund" clearly include "passive inability to travel caused by a state administrative restriction"？If there is ambiguity，the terms should be interpreted in favor of the consumer，and the clause should be deemed inapplicable to this case。

Third，did the clause constitute an invalid term？Article 497 of the Civil Code states that a standard term is invalid if it exempts the party supplying it from liability、increases the other party's liability、or excludes the other party's principal rights。If the "voluntary refund" rule effectively exempts the platform and airline from service liability in circumstances such as administrative restrictions that are not caused by the consumer，and transfers to the consumer all the risks that should be shared among multiple parties，its validity may be subject to challenge。

Based on the above reasons，the plaintiff expressly requested in his claims that the defendant bear the burden of proof for any deductions it sought to impose。If the evidence was insufficient，an interpretation unfavorable to the defendant should be adopted and its claim for deductions should not be supported。

IV、The Platform's Legal Duties：More Than Just a "Mouthpiece"

Another question raised by this case concerns the legal role of online travel platforms。

In its response，Ctrip stated：“We have verified with Japan Airlines that there is no waiver policy” and advised the plaintiff to "contact the airline yourself"。In the plaintiff's view，this approach shifted responsibility onto the consumer。

However，under Article 38 of the E-Commerce Law、Article 44 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests、and Article 23 of the Interim Provisions on the Administration of Online Tourism Business Services，online travel platforms, as business operators and providers of consumer services, have duties to disclose information、assist with coordination、and handle disputes。A platform should not merely act as a "mouthpiece"，but should actively assist consumers in resolving problems, including communicating with airlines to request special waivers、providing consumers with professional guidance、and proposing reasonable alternatives when coordination fails。

The plaintiff argues that Ctrip mechanically applied the deduction rules without fully understanding their meaning，and did not undertake any substantive coordination、communication、or assistance，thus completely failing to perform the legal duties incumbent on an online travel platform。

V、Travel Insurance：What Coverage Is There When No Trip Took Place？

The case for a full refund of the travel-insurance premiums is relatively clear as a matter of legal principle。

The coverage provided by travel insurance is based on the basic prerequisite that the trip actually take place。The global travel insurance purchased by Feng Zhenghu covered the period from March 17 to June 14, 2026。Because he was barred from leaving the country，he did not actually travel at any point during the entire insurance period，none of the risks covered by the insurance（travel accidents、baggage loss、and so on）occurred，and the insurer provided no insurance coverage whatsoever。

Under relevant provisions of the Insurance Law，the policyholder has the right to terminate the contract before the insurance liability begins and receive a refund of the premium。In this case，the trip did not take place，the insurance liability was never triggered，and the insurance contract was effectively never performed。If the entire premium were nevertheless retained，the consumer would effectively be paying for a risk covered by a policy that "did not exist"——which is plainly unfair。

VI、An Issue Worth Watching

This case is worth watching not only because of the specific figure of 6,210 yuan，but also because it touches on a question of broader significance：when a citizen suffers contractual losses as a result of administrative measures taken by a state organ，how should those losses be allocated？

Restrictions on leaving the country are compulsory and external measures lawfully implemented by state organs。Citizens have no ability to foresee or resist them。But when they trigger a series of commercial contract losses involving air tickets、hotels、insurance and other services，is it fair for all of those losses to be borne by individual citizens？When online travel platforms and airlines formulate rules on cancellations and changes，should they leave room for flexibility in these special circumstances that are "not caused by the consumer"？

One passage in Feng Zhenghu's complaint may reveal the deeper motivation behind his lawsuit：

“The defendants should not inflict 'secondary harm' through stringent deduction rules when consumers have suffered a major misfortune。This approach is inconsistent with reasonable consumer protection in modern commercial civilization。”

The case has now been accepted by the People's Court of Changning District, Shanghai, and is under consideration。

Whether the 6,210 yuan in ticket and insurance costs can be recovered，where the boundaries of the rules lie，and how the platform's liability should be defined——these questions await answers from the court。

But at the very least，the fact that an elderly man chose to take up legal arms and pursue these questions is itself worthy of being seen。