subject: Why Aqsiq Sued Monopoly? [print this page] Background: August 11, Shanghai and Jiangsu in the network Network Limited South Digital Technology Co., Ltd. two security companies, will be the State Administration of Quality Supervision, sued the Beijing Municipal No. 1 Intermediate People's Court. This is the August 1 letter and three other security companies Beijing trillion, will sue the State Administration of Quality Supervision, the State Administration of Quality Supervision experienced the second antitrust lawsuit. Four companies claimed AQSIQ in promoting the "China product quality electronic supervision network" in the process, violated the "anti-unfair competition law" and "anti-monopoly law," alleged administrative monopoly.
Four companies submitted to the court's administrative complaint said, beginning from April 2005, AQSIQ issued a document through various conferences, etc., to promote a company called "Information Technology Co., CITIC review company "the quality of Chinese products business of electronic monitoring network operations require manufacturers of products in the production of regulatory codes printed on the packaging. Users can SMS, telephone, Internet, etc., to check the website of electronic monitoring the effectiveness of regulatory codes, to determine whether the product purchased is counterfeit. To this end, adding electronic monitoring network data, companies need to pay maintenance fees, consumers check to pay check information on charges and telephone charges.
According to the investigation, prosecution by the CITIC CITIC Telecom 21 and the AQSIQ information center, a joint venture of China Posts and Telecommunications registration letter, of which 30% of the shares by the AQSIQ information center has. AQSIQ Department of State Information Center, a unit of General Administration.
2008 4 17, the State Administration of Quality Supervision spokesman Ping Liu told the media that, in the electronic monitoring network of research and development stage, the AQSIQ information center is indeed involved in the regulatory network of R & D and technology platform, etc. . But with the end of R & D stage, control network access to the actual operation and the promotion stage, "Information centers as early technology R & D unit is no longer involved in related work, Information Center in CITIC inspection companies do not own any shares."
Complaint that since 1996, the national security industry are in widespread use such as "electronic monitoring network" technology company providing products for the production of security services. AQSIQ will promote electronic monitoring network with the Chinese famous brand products, exempt from selected link, and to provide some products are not endowed network may not be sold, in fact, establish an electronic monitoring network operators?? CITIC check monopoly status.
Peking University Law School Professor Wang Xixin that the government can not control with a new technology for their own profit, this subversion of the government's responsibility.
He said, even if the regulation is necessary, this approach and let the regulator have sufficient reason to question the motives. As the interests involved, the purpose would have a very good thing deprive the people of the rationality and necessity of regulation to question, undermine the government's authority and neutrality.
Xi-zinc that if the use regulatory code should be through open Tender . Such things would be much simpler, we just want to be discussed not to use this technology. But now, a company designated to do the things that is not right, which the Government has stressed the neutrality of the regulatory and service functions, are in conflict. Gives the impression that the government was a business "captured", and is a benefit to do this thing.
He pointed out that this can be a direct violation of the "Government Procurement Law", the Government should use a technology, is a purchasing behavior. This requires attention to two issues. First of all, as a government department, AQSIQ decided to use a technology if it means the government to choose a company and this opportunity to have this technology for domestic and foreign enterprises should be equal. Is through competition, and actually bidding to see who the product better, cheaper, Which on the choice. Second, the subordinate units must not intervene, this would be ambiguous regulatory purposes, is not only legitimate but also arouse skepticism. In addition, it also damaged the credibility of the Government, the Government should not compete with the people.
Xi-Zn said AQSIQ had a very important power that the national mandatory standards. This does not necessarily involve antitrust issues. As a regulator, the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection itself is neutral. The reason why antitrust issues raised now, because this technology to the AQSIQ to implement an enterprise. If an open process to select, do not constitute monopolies. Now, even if not from the anti-monopoly point of view, it can be said that the procedure is illegal. People will ask, there are many companies can provide this technology, why only choose this one? AQSIQ practice is absolutely impossible, that the security demands of enterprises can be established, this should be an administrative monopoly.
Administrative monopoly in certain problem can be characterized the same time, Wang Xi zinc raises another question, namely whether the Court would accept the court in determining whether this is the scope of the case will be affected by obstacles. According to China's current laws, the abstract administrative act is inadmissible. But now look, AQSIQ is an abstract form of administrative action, to express a specific thing, not a typical administrative behavior.
In addition, zinc Wang Xi pointed out that there are reasonable on whether the technology is worth discussing. Only in respect of view have some effect, but effect is not necessarily to do, we need to do cost-benefit analysis. If the review found small benefits, the cost of the entire industry into a very large, even larger than the cost of benefits, then this would obviously not reasonable. Also need to control impact analysis, a certain control measures on different enterprises, the impact of different industries is not a serious imbalance, if a certain business or industry adversely affected by the extreme, but also still have to take into account these special circumstances, otherwise to be fair, the actual is not fair.
