Draft Revisions of the Anti-Monopoly Law (Public Comment Draft)

ALL TRANSLATIONS ON THIS SITE ARE UNOFFICIAL AND ARE PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY. THESE TRANSLATIONS ARE CREATED AND CONTINUOUSLY UPDATED BY USERS –THEY ARE FREE TO VIEW, BUT PROPER ATTRIBUTION IS REQUIRED FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THESE OR DERIVATIVE TRANSLATIONS.

English中文(简体)

Rev来源: http://www.samr.gov.cn/hd/zjdc/202001/t20200102_310120.html

Draft Revision to the "P.R.C. Anti-Monopoly Law" (Draft for Public Solicitation of Comments)

Chapter I: General Provisions

Article 1: This Law is formulated to prevent and restrain monopolistic practices, to protect fair market competition, to encourage innovation, to enhance economic efficiency, to safeguard consumers’ interests and the public interest, and to promote the healthy development of the socialist market economy.

Article 2: This Law applies to monopolistic practices in economic activities within the territory of the People’s Republic of China; and applies to monopolistic practices outside the territory of the People’s Republic of China that eliminate or restrict competition in China’s domestic market.

Article 3: The monopolistic practices provided by this Law include:

(1) conclusion of monopoly agreements by undertakings;

(2) abuse of dominant market positions by undertakings;

(3) concentrations of undertakings that have or may have the effect of eliminating or restricting competition.

Article 4: The State strengthens the foundational status of competition policies as well as formulates and implements competition rules that are compatible with the socialist market economy, so as to improve macroeconomic regulation and perfect an integrated, open, competitive, and orderly market system.

Article 5: Undertakings may, though fair competition and voluntary association, carry out concentrations in accordance with law, so as to expand the scale of their operations and enhance their market competitiveness.

Article 6: Undertakings holding a dominant market position shall not abuse the dominant market position to eliminate or restrict competition.

Article 7: For industries in which State-owned economy dominates and that are vital to the national security and national security, as well as industries that exercise a monopoly over production and sales, the State protects the lawful business activities of the undertakings in those industries and conducts supervision and regulation of their business activities and the prices of their goods and services in accordance with law, so as to safeguard consumers’ interests and promote technological progress.

Undertakings in the industries provided in the previous paragraph shall operate in accordance with law, be honest and truthful, conduct strict self-regulation, and accept public supervision, and shall not use their dominant positions or monopolistic positions to harm consumers’ interests.

Article 8: Administrative organs and organizations authorized by law or regulations to administer public affairs shall not abuse their administrative authority to eliminate or restrict competition.

Article 9: The State establishes and implements a fair competition review system to regulate governmental administrative actions and to prevent the promulgation of policy measures that eliminate or restrict competition.

Article 10: The State Council establishes an Anti-Monopoly Committee to be in charge of organizing, coordinating, and guiding anti-monopoly work and to perform the following duties:

(1) studying and drafting the relevant policies on competition;

(2) organizing the investigation and assessment of the overall level of competition in the market and publishing assessment reports;

(3) formulating and publishing anti-monopoly guidelines;

(4) coordinating administrative anti-monopoly law enforcement and fair competition review;

(5) other duties prescribed by the State Council.

The composition and working rules of the State Council Anti-Monopoly Committee are to be prescribed by the State Council.

Article 11: The administrative department for market regulation under the State Council (hereinafter referred to as the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency) is responsible for anti-monopoly law enforcement in accordance the provisions of this Law.

As needed for work, the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency may establish remote bodies or authorize the appropriate bodies of the people’s governments of the provinces, autonomous regions, or directly governed municipalities to take charge of the relevant anti-monopoly law enforcement work in accordance with the provisions of this Law.

Article 12: Trading associations shall strengthen industrial self-regulation, guide the undertakings in their respective industries to compete lawfully, and maintain the competitive order in the market.

Article 13: “Undertakings” as used in this Law refers to natural persons, legal persons, and other organizations that engage in the manufacture of or trade in goods or in the provision of services.

A “relevant market” as used in this Law refers to the range of goods or territories in which undertakings compete for specific goods or services (hereinafter collectively referred to as “goods”) during a certain period of time.

Chapter II: Monopoly Agreements

Article 14: Undertakings are prohibited from concluding monopoly agreements with each other.

“Monopoly agreements” as used in this Law refers to agreements, decisions, or concerted actions that eliminate or restrict competition.

Article 15: Competing undertakings are prohibited from concluding the following monopoly agreements:

(1) those that fix or change the price of goods;

(2) those that limit the quantity of goods manufactured or marketed;

(3) those that divide the sales market or procurement market;

(4) those that restrict the acquisition of new technology or new equipment or restrict the development of new technology or new product;

(5) those that jointly boycott transactions;

(6) other monopoly agreements as determined by the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency.

Article 16: Undertakings are prohibited from concluding the following monopoly agreements with trading counterparties:

(1) those that fix the price of goods resold to a third party;

(2) those that limit the lowest price of goods resold to a third party;

(3) other monopoly agreements as determined by the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency.

Article 17: Undertakings are prohibited from organizing or assisting other undertakings to conclude monopoly agreements.

Article 18: Where undertakings can demonstrate that a monopoly agreement concluded has one of the following circumstances, the provisions of Article 15, 16, and 17 of this Law do not apply:

(1) to improve technologies or to research and develop new products;

(2) to improve product quality, lower cost, or increase efficiency by unifying the specifications or standards of products or by implementing specialized division of labor;

(3) to increase the operating efficiency of small and medium-sized undertakings or to increase their competitiveness;

(4) to achieve energy conservation, environmental protection, disaster relief, and such other public interests;

(5) to mitigate the sharp decline in sales volume or obvious overproduction due to an economic recession;

(6) to safeguard the legitimate interests in foreign trade or in foreign economic cooperation;

(7) other circumstances prescribed by laws or the State Council.

Where the provisions of Article 15, 16, and 17 of this Law do not apply in the circumstances under items (1) through (5) of the previous paragraph, the undertakings shall additionally demonstrate that the agreement concluded is a necessary condition for realizing the relevant circumstances, that it will not seriously restrict competition in the relevant market, and that it will enable the consumers to share the resulting benefits.

Article 19: Trade associations shall not organize undertakings to engage in the monopolistic practices prohibited by this Chapter.

Chapter III: Abuse of Dominant Market Positions

Article 20: Undertakings holding dominant market positions are prohibited from engaging in the following practices that abuse dominant market positions:

(1) selling goods at unfairly high prices or buying goods at unfairly low prices;

(2) selling goods at below-cost prices without legitimate reasons;

(3) refusing to trade with trading counterparties without legitimate reasons;

(4) restricting trading counterparties to trade solely with themselves or with undertakings designated by them without legitimate reasons;

(5) conducting tie-in sales of goods without legitimate reasons, or attaching other unreasonable trading conditions to transactions;

(6) applying dissimilar treatment to trading counterparties with respect to prices and other trading conditions without legitimate reasons;

(7) other practices abusing dominant market positions as determined by the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency.

A “dominant market position” as used in this Law refers to a market position held by undertakings that enables them to control the prices or quantities of goods or other trading conditions, or to hinder or affect the ability of other undertakings to enter the relevant market.

Article 21: A determination that an undertaking holds a dominant market position shall be based on the following factors:

(1) the undertaking’s market share in the relevant market and the level of competition in the relevant market;

(2) the undertaking’s ability to control the sales markets or the procurement markets for raw materials;

(3) the undertaking’s financial resources and technical capabilities;

(4) the extent to which other undertakings rely on the undertaking for trading;

(5) the level of difficulty for other undertakings to enter the relevant market;

(6) other factors relevant to determining the undertaking’s dominant market position.

In determining whether an undertaking in the internet sector holds a dominant market position, factors such as network effects, economies of scale, lock-in effects, and its ability to acquire and process the relevant data shall also be considered.

Article 22: In one of the following circumstances, it may be presumed that undertakings hold dominant market positions:

(1) where one undertaking’s market share amounts to one-half of a relevant market;

(2) where two undertakings’ joint market share amounts to two-thirds of a relevant market

(3) where three undertakings’ joint market share amounts to third-fourths of a relevant market.

In the circumstances provided in item 2 or 3 of the previous paragraph, if one of the undertakings has a market share of less than one-tenth, it shall not be presumed that said undertaking holds a dominant market position.

Where an undertaking that is presumed to hold a dominant market position has evidence that it does not hold a dominant market position, it shall be not presumed to hold a dominant market position.

Chapter IV: Concentrations of Undertakings

Article 23: A concentration of undertakings means any of following circumstances:

(1) a merger of undertakings;

(2) acquisition by undertakings of the right to control other undertakings by acquiring their shares or assets;

(3) acquisition by undertakings of the right to control other undertakings by contract or other means.

The “right to control” as used in the previous paragraph means the right or actual status of undertakings to, directly or indirectly, individually or jointly, exert or potentially exert a decisive influence on the business activities or other major decisions of other undertakings.

Article 24: Where a concentration of undertakings meets the declaration criteria prescribed by the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency, the undertakings shall declare in advance to the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency, and shall not implement the concentration without such a declaration.

The State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency may formulate and revise the declaration criteria based on the level of economic development, the scale of industries, etc. and promptly release them to the public.

Where a concentration of undertakings meets the declaration criteria, but the undertakings implement the concentration without declaring it in accordance with law, or where a concentration of undertakings does not meet the declaration criteria, but still has or may have the effect of eliminating or restricting competition, the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency shall investigate in accordance with law.

Article 25: In any of the following circumstances, a concentration of undertakings need not be declared to the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency:

(1) where one of the undertakings participating in the concentration owns fifty percent or more of the voting shares or assets of each of the other undertakings;

(2) where fifty percent or more of the voting shares or assets of each of the undertakings participating in the concentration is owned by the same undertaking that does not participate in the concentration.

Article 26: Undertakings that declare a concentration to the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency shall submit the following documents and materials and be responsible for the veracity of the documentation submitted:

(1) A written declaration;

(2) an explanation of the effect of the concentration on competition in the relevant market;

(3) the concentration agreements;

(4) the financial statements of the undertakings participating in the concentration for the previous accounting year that have been audited by accounting firms;

(5) other documents and materials specified by the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency.

The written declaration shall clearly state the names of the undertakings participating in the concentration, their domiciles, the scope of their businesses, their scheduled date for implementing the concentration, and other matters specified by the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency.

Article 27: Where the documents and materials submitted by undertakings are incomplete, they shall submit the remaining documents and materials within the period of time prescribed by the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency. Where the undertakings fail to submit the remaining documents and materials within that period, they will be deemed to have made no declaration.

Article 28: Within 30 days of receiving documents and materials submitted by undertakings that comply with the provisions of Article 26 of this Law, the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency shall conduct a preliminary review of the declared concentration of undertakings, decide whether to conduct a further review, and notify the undertakings in writing. The undertakings shall not implement the concentration before the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency makes such a decision.

Where the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency decides not to conduct a further review or fails to make a decision within the time limit, the undertakings may implement the concentration.

Article 29: In any of the following circumstances, after notifying the undertakings in writing, the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency may extend the period for review as prescribed by the previous paragraph, but not to exceed 60 days:

In any of the following circumstances, after notifying the undertakings in writing, the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency may extend the period for review as prescribed by the previous paragraph, but not to exceed 60 days:

(1) where the undertakings consent to extending the period for review;

(2) where the documents or materials submitted by the undertakings are inaccurate and need further verification;

(3) where the relevant circumstances have materially changed after the undertakings made the declaration.

Where the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency fails to make a decision within the time limit, the undertakings may implement the concentration.

Article 30: The time needed in the following circumstances is not counted toward the periods for review prescribed by Articles 28 and 29 of this Law:

(1) where the period for review is suspended with the declarant’s consent or upon its application;

(2) where undertakings submit the remaining documents or materials as required by the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency;

(3) where the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency negotiates additional restrictive conditions with undertakings in accordance with the provisions of Article 33 of this Law.

The specific provisions on suspending the periods for review are to be separated prescribed by the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency.

Article 31: The following factors shall be considered in the review or investigation of a concentration of undertakings:

(1) the market shares of the undertakings participating in the concentration in the relevant market and their power to control the market;

(2) market concentration in the relevant market;

(3) the effect of the concentration on market access and technological progress;

(4) the effect of the concentration on consumers and other relevant undertakings;

(5) the effect of the concentration on the development of the national economy;

(6) other factors having an effect on market competition that the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency deems shall be considered.

Article 32: If a concentration of undertakings has or may have the effect of eliminating or restricting competition, the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency shall make a decision to prohibit the concentration of undertakings. However, if the undertakings can demonstrate that the concentration’s positive effect on competition outweighs its negative effect thereon, or that the concentration is in the public interest, the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency may make a decision to not prohibit the concentration of undertakings.

Article 33: The State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency may decide to impose on a concentration of undertakings that is not prohibited, additional restrictive conditions that reduce the concentration’s negative effect on competition.

Article 34: Where, upon investigation, a concentration of undertakings that does not meet the declaration criteria has or may have the effect of eliminating or restricting competition, the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency may decide to handle it in accordance with the provisions of Articles 32 and 33 of this Law. Where the undertakings have already implemented the concentration, the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency may also order them to cease implementing the concentration, to dispose of their shares or assets within a set period of time, to transfer their businesses within a set period of time, or to take other necessary remedial measures to return to the state before the concentration.

Article 35: The State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency shall timely release to the public its decisions prohibiting the concentrations of undertakings or imposing additional restrictive conditions on the concentrations of undertakings.

Article 36: Where a concentration of undertakings implicates the national security, it shall be subjected to national security review in accordance with the relevant provisions of the State.

Chapter V: Abuse of Administrative Authority to Eliminate or Restrict Competition

Article 37: Administrative organs and organizations authorized by law or regulations to administer public affairs shall not abuse their administrative authority to require or covertly require units or individuals to trade in, purchase, or use only the goods supplied by the undertakings designated by them.

Article 38: Administrative organs and organizations authorized by law or regulations to administer public affairs shall not abuse their administrative authority to carry out the following acts, thereby obstructing the free flow of goods among different regions:

(1) setting discriminatory fee items, implementing discriminatory fee rates, or setting discriminatory prices for non-local goods;

(2) imposing on non-local goods technical requirements or inspection standards different from those imposed on similar local goods, or taking discriminatory technical measures, such as repeated inspections or repeated certifications, against non-local goods, so as to restrict non-local goods from entering the local market;

(3) implementing administrative licenses specifically targeting non-local goods to restrict non-local goods from entering the local market;

(4) setting up checkpoints or taking other measures to prevent non-local goods from entering or local goods from exiting;

(5) other acts obstructing the free flow of goods among different regions.

Article 39: Administrative organs and organizations authorized by law or regulations to administer public affairs shall not abuse their administrative authority to exclude or restrict undertakings from participating in bid-inviting and bidding activities, by means such as setting discriminatory qualification requirements or evaluation standards or by not publishing information in accordance with law.

Article 40: Administrative organs and organizations authorized by law or regulations to administer public affairs shall not abuse their administrative authority to exclude or restrict non-local undertakings from investing locally or establishing local branch offices, or to compel them to do so, by means such as treating them unequally as compared to local undertakings.

Article 41: Administrative organs and organizations authorized by law or regulations to administer public affairs shall not abuse their administrative authority to compel or covertly compel undertakings to engage in the monopolistic practices provided by this Law.

Article 42: Administrative organs and organizations authorized by law or regulations to administer public affairs shall not abuse their administrative authority to formulate rules with contents that eliminate or restrict competition.

When formulating rules involving the economic activities of market entities, administrative organs and organizations authorized by law or regulations to administer public affairs shall carry out fair competition review in accordance with the relevant provisions of the State.

Chapter VI: Investigations of Suspected Violations

Article 43: Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies are to investigate suspected monopolistic practices in accordance with law.

All units and individuals have the right to report suspected monopolistic practices to Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies. Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies shall keep the reports confidential.

Where a report is in writing and provides relevant facts and evidence, Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies shall conduct necessary investigations.

Article 44: Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies may take the following measures when investigating suspected monopolistic practices:

(1) entering the business premises or other relevant premises of the undertakings under investigation to conduct inspections;

(2) interviewing the undertakings under investigation, the interested parties, or other relevant units or individuals and requiring them to explain the relevant situations;

(3) inspecting and copying the relevant documents and materials of the undertakings under investigation, the interested parties, or other relevant units or individuals, such as bills, agreements, books of accounts, business correspondence, and electronic data;

(4) sealing and seizing the relevant evidence;

(5) examining the undertakings’ bank accounts.

To take the measures specified in the previous paragraph, written reports shall be submitted to the principal persons in charge of the Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies and their approval obtained. When necessary, public security organs shall assist according to law.

Article 45: When Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies investigate suspected monopolistic practices, there shall be no fewer than two law enforcement personnel, who shall present their law enforcement documents.

When conducting interviews and investigations, law enforcement personnel shall make written records, signed by the persons interviewed or being investigated.

Article 46: Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies and their employees are obligated to keep confidential the trade secrets or personal privacy they learn in the course of law enforcement.

Article 47: The undertakings under investigation, the interested parties, or other relevant units or individuals shall cooperate with Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies in their lawful performance of duties and shall not refuse or obstruct investigations by Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies.

Article 48: The undertakings under investigation and the interested parties have the right to state their opinions. Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies shall verify the facts, reasons, and evidence presented by the undertakings under investigation or by the interested parties.

Article 49: Where, after investigating and verifying the suspected monopolistic practices, Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies deem them to constitute monopolistic practices, they shall decide to handle them in accordance with law and may release them to the public.

Article 50: Where, for a suspected monopolistic practice under investigation by an Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency, the undertaking under investigation commits to take specific measures to eliminate the consequences of said practice within a period of time accepted by the Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency, the Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency may decide to suspend the investigation. A decision to suspend an investigation shall clearly state the specific contents of the commitment of the undertaking under investigation.

Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies shall not suspend investigations into monopoly agreements suspected of violating the provisions of item 1, 2, or 3 of Article 15 of this Law.

Where an Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency decides to suspend an investigation, it shall supervise the undertaking’s fulfillment of its commitment. The undertaking shall report to the Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency the circumstances of its fulfillment of its commitment within the prescribed period of time. Where an undertaking fulfills its commitment, the Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency may decide to terminate the investigation.

In any of the following circumstances, the Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency shall resume the investigation:

(1) where the undertaking fails to fulfill its commitment;

(2) where the facts on whose basis the decision to suspend the investigation have materially changed;

(3) where the decision to suspend the investigation was based on incomplete or untruthful information provided by the undertaking.

Article 51: Where, after the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency has decided on the review of a concentration of undertakings, there are facts and evidence demonstrating that the documents or materials provided by the declarant were or may have been untruthful or inaccurate, necessitating another review, the State Council Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency may, at the request of interested parties or pursuant to its own authority, conduct an investigation according to law and rescind the original review decision.

Article 52: Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies are to investigate abuse of administrative authority to eliminate or restrict competition in accordance with law. Administrative organs or organizations authorized by law or regulations to administer public affairs that are under investigation, undertakings, interested parties, or other relevant units or individuals shall report on the relevant matters or provide the relevant materials based on the Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies’ requests and explain the matters reported or materials provided.

Chapter VII: Legal Responsibility

Article 53: Where an undertaking concludes and implements a monopoly agreement in violation of the provisions of this Law, Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies shall order it to cease the violation, confiscate its ill-gotten gains, and impose a fine of at least 1 percent but up to 10 percent of its turnover from the previous year; where an undertaking has no sales from the previous year or where it has yet to implement the monopoly agreement concluded, a fine of up to RMB 50,000,000 may be imposed.

The provisions of the previous paragraph apply to the organization or assistance of undertakings to conclude monopoly agreements.

Where an undertaking voluntarily reports to Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies the relevant circumstances of the conclusion of a monopoly agreement and offers important evidence, the Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies may, at their discretion, mitigate or waive the penalties imposed on the undertaking.

Where a trade association organizes undertakings to conclude a monopoly agreement in violation of the provisions of this Law, Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies shall order it to cease the violation and may impose a fine of up to RMB 5,000,000; where the circumstances are serious, the administrative organ for the registration of social groups may revoke its registration in accordance with law.

Article 54: Where an undertaking abuses its dominant market position in violation of the provisions of this Law, the Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies shall order it to cease the violation, confiscate its ill-gotten gains, and impose a fine of at least 1 percent but up to 10 percent of its turnover from the previous year.

Article 55: Where a concentration of undertakings has one of the following circumstances, Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies shall impose a fine of up to 10 percent of its turnover from the previous year:

(1) implementing the concentration without making a declaration but should have made a declaration;

(2) implementing the concentration after making a declaration without receiving an approval;

(3) violating a decision imposing additional restrictive conditions;

(4) implementing the concentration in violation of a decision prohibiting the concentration.

In addition to the provision of the previous paragraph, Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies may, in accordance with the specific circumstances, order the undertakings to cease implementing the concentration, impose additional restrictive conditions that reduce the concentration’s negative effect on competition, order them to continue fulfilling their obligations under the additional restrictive conditions, or order them to dispose of their shares or assets within a set period of time, to transfer their business within a set period of time, or to take other necessary remedial measures to return to state before the concentration.

Article 56: For the fines prescribed by Articles 53, 54, and 55 of this Law, when determining the specific amount of fines to be imposed, Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies shall consider factors such as the nature, extent, duration of the violations and the circumstances of eliminating the consequences of the violations.

Article 57: Where an undertaking causes losses to others by engaging in monopolistic practices, it bears civil liability in accordance with law. Where a crime is constituted, criminal responsibility is pursued in accordance with law.

Article 58: Where administrative organs and organizations authorized by law or regulations to administer public affairs abuse their administrative authority to engage in conduct that eliminates or restricts competition, Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies may order them to make corrections and recommend that the relevant upper-level organs handle in accordance with law and that the upper-level organs give sanctions to the directly responsible persons in charge and other directly responsible persons in accordance with law.

The administrative organs and organizations authorized by law or regulations to administer public affairs shall make the corrections within the time prescribed by the Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies and shall report the relevant circumstances of the corrections to the Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies in writing.

Article 59: Where, during a review or an investigation lawfully conducted by an Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency, one refuses to provide the relevant materials or information, or provides false materials or information, or conceals, destroys, or transfers evidence, or threatens personal safety, the Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency shall order it to make corrections, and, for administrative organs and organizations authorized by law or regulations to administer public affairs, may recommend that the relevant upper-level organs or supervisory organs give sanctions in accordance with law; for any other unit, shall impose a fine of up to 1 percent of its turnover from the previous year, or where the unit has no turnover or the turnover is hard to calculate, a fine of up to RMB 5,000,000; and for individuals, may impose a fine of at least RMB 200,000 but up to RMB 1,000,000; where a crime is constituted, criminal responsibility is pursued in accordance with law.

Article 60: Where an undertaking is dissatisfied with a decision made by an Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency in accordance with Article 31 or 32 of this Law, it may first petition for administrative reconsideration in accordance with law; where it is dissatisfied with the administrative reconsideration decision, it may initiate an administrative litigation in accordance with law.

Where an undertaking is dissatisfied with a decision made by an Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency other than a decision specified in the previous paragraph, it may petition for administrative reconsideration or initiate an administrative litigation in accordance with law.

Article 61: Where the employees of Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agencies abuse their authority, derelict their duties, show favoritism for personal gain, or divulge the trade secrets they learn in the course of law enforcement, and where a crime is constituted, criminal responsibility is pursued in accordance with law; where a crime is not constituted, sanctions are given in accordance with law.

Chapter VIII: Supplemental Provisions

Article 62: This Law does not apply to undertakings’ exercise of intellectual property rights in accordance with the provisions of laws and administrative regulations concerning intellectual property rights; however, this Law applies to undertakings’ abuse of intellectual property rights to eliminate or restrict competition.

Article 63: This Law does not apply to the joint or concerted actions taken by agricultural producers and rural economic organizations in business activities such as the production, processing, sale, transportation, or storage of agricultural products.

Article 64: This Law shall take effect on xx-xx-xxxx.

About China Law Translate 1017 Articles
CLT is a crowdsourced, crowdfunded legal translation project that enables English speaking people to better understand Chinese law.