By: Susan Ning, Shan Lining and Angie Ng

On 17 November 2010, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) organized a "price monopoly" workshop in Chengdu to take stock of: (a) developments in relation to price related breaches of the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML); and (b) developments in relation to provincial level price authorities and their enforcement of the AML (see our article entitled "Provincial Price Authorities and the AML" dated 20 November 2010.[1]

During that workshop, the NDRC also listed some 10 instances of price-related breaches of the AML and / or Price Law 1997 – investigations and enforcement actions against the breaching entities were undertaken by provincial or local price authorities. 

The following table sets out details to do with these 10 breaches (from publicly available information).

No.

Entity involved and details

Place of enforcement

Period of enforcement

Remedies

Price cartel cases

1.         

The Civil Explosives Industry Association facilitated a price cartel amongst its members – the cartel raised the prices of explosives. 

Liaoning Province

Not publicly available

Not publicly available

2.         

The Zhaoqing Badminton Association facilitated a price cartel amongst its members. 

Guangdong Province

Not publicly available

Not publicly available

3.         

The Zhuhai Insurance Association facilitated a price cartel amongst its members.

Guangdong Province

Not publicly available

Not publicly available

4.         

Thirty-three rice noodle producers based in Guangxi were found to have collectively raised the prices of rice noodles through price raising and profit sharing agreements.

Guangxi Autonomous Region

According to the NDRC, the cartel conduct commenced in January 2010. Remedies were imposed on March 2010.

The organizers (3 entities) of the cartel were fined RMB100,000 each; other participants were fined between RMB30,000 to 80,000 each; some participants were immune from fines due to their cooperation during the investigation process.

5.         

Internet cafes in Zhenjiang city were involved in a price cartel.

Jiangsu Province

According to the NDRC, the cartel conduct commenced in February 2010. Remedies were imposed on March 2010.

Participants of the cartel were ordered to cease the cartel conduct.

6.         

A tea association in Zhenjiang city facilitated a cartel amongst its members, resulting in the raised prices of tea.

Jiangsu Province

Not publicly available

Not publicly available

7.         

A tableware association in Xiamen facilitated cartel conduct in relation to disinfectant products.

Fujian Province

Members of the association met in April 2010 to decide to raise prices. They agreed to raise prices in May 2010. However, before they could do this, they were stopped by authorities.

Entities were ordered to cease the cartel conduct.

8.         

Eleven diary product suppliers colluded in order to decrease the price of fresh milk from fresh milk suppliers.

Xinjiang Autonomous Region

Not publicly available

Not publicly available

Price related abuse of dominance conduct

9.         

The Wuchang Salt Company (a supplier of table salt) made their supply of salt (to local distributors) contingent on purchase of washing detergent. They were found to have abused their dominance by way of anticompetitive tying. (See our article entitled "What constitutes anticompetitive tying? The Wuchang Salt Company Case")

Hubei Province

The infringing conduct was undertaken from July to August 2010. Remedies were imposed in November 2010.

"Corrective measures" were imposed.

10.      

A local salt company based in Jiangsu province made their supply of salt (to local distributors) contingent on purchase of washing detergent. They were found to have abused their dominance by way of anticompetitive tying.

Jiangsu Province

Not publicly available

Not publicly available

Comments

The above list of cases aren’t an exhaustive list of public enforcement cases to do with the AML and the Price Law. It is interesting that in the NDRC’s press releases, they have listed some of the above price cartel breaches as being both in breach of the AML as well as the Price Law.

As far as we are aware, the NDRC (along with its related provincial authorities) does not keep a systematic "public register" of enforcement cases pursuant to the AML and the Price Law on their website. They are not statutorily obliged to do this. Pursuant to the Price Law, there are no express provisions which deal with the publication of decisions or enforcement actions. Pursuant to the AML, Article 44 states that the authority may release or make its decisions or enforcement actions public.

In light of the above, it is currently challenging to keep track of how many enforcement decisions or cases there have been, pursuant to the Price Law and the AML.