'Antitrust probes aim to ensure market transparency and rights of consumers'(2)

Q: Which industries in China have borne the brunt of the investigations on monopolistic behavior?

A: There are no specific industries as such, as all industries and areas are on our radar. We will investigate domestic or foreign companies if they are in alleged violation of China's Antitrust Law without any discrimination.

The Antitrust Law does not target specific industries, nor a specific market. Most of the cases that we are working on pertain to a wide cross-section of industries. Of course, in some instances, we will pay more attention to some industries.

Recently, there have been some instances of probes against automobile companies and auto parts makers, but we have been focusing on the automotive industry for two or three years.

Q: Some overseas information technology companies are also facing antitrust investigations in China. Why do you think that tech companies are lax in adhering to the Antitrust Law?

A: In most cases, the monopolistic actions arise as a result of the companies' untempered pursuit of maximum profits in the market. The pursuit of maximum profits sometimes endangers normal market competition and consumers' interests.

Every company doing business in China should review their business using the clauses of the Antitrust Law implemented in 2008. Some business operators in China have failed to adjust their practices in accordance with the Antitrust Law. Others have a clear understanding of the law but they take the chance that they may escape punishment.

Q: There have been some allegations that most of the antitrust investigations are directed against overseas companies. What are your views on this?

A: Such accusations are groundless and baseless. Some of the NDRC monopoly investigations involve overseas multinationals, but that does not mean that we are targeting them.

As a law-enforcement agency, we treat local and overseas companies equally to ensure justice for all. This is the spirit of the Chinese Antitrust Law. We are also handling cases involving State-owned enterprises and Chinese companies from the private sector.

In 2012, we penalized a light emitting diode screen monopoly case involving six overseas companies. China is the largest LED consumer in the world and as such we suffered the most due to the monopolistic actions of the vendors. The US, European Union and South Korea had also investigated these companies before us.

We have also investigated monopoly cases in milk powder and liquor industries, and some of these companies were SOEs. The punishments for some local and overseas companies were waived because the monopoly behavior was less serious and they were fully cooperating with the investigations.

Q: Do you think NDRC is posing heavier punishments on overseas companies than local ones?

A: We stick to fairness and justice when conducting investigations and applying punishments. The NDRC will punish a company only if it is manipulating the market and using its advantage in price setting. The punishments have nothing to do with the ownership of the company.

Q: There were some concerns that antitrust law enforcement did not follow the due process as companies did not have access to legal recourse, did not have any effective redressal mechanisms and suffered due to low transparency. What are your views on this?

A: The NDRC attaches great importance to further improvement and standardization of the anti-monopoly enforcement procedures. We have issued the "Anti-price monopoly law enforcement procedural regulations" and revised in 2013 a number of enforcement procedures related to regulations and documentation. Going forward, we will actively pursue more such measures.

During the course of antitrust enforcement, the NDRC has always ensured that the defendants can make statements, seek hearings and legal redressal. For example, in an auto parts price-fixing case, Sumitomo from Japan filed a written statement which was accepted by the NDRC. We reduced the fine from 342.72 million yuan ($55.28 million) to 290.4 million yuan.

For administrative penalties, the defendants can apply for administrative reconsideration or bring an administrative lawsuit. These rights are clearly explained in the administrative penalties issued to the parties.

Transparency and standardization in law enforcement is our prime focus. The Antitrust Law stipulates that the monopolistic behavior can be released to the public.

We have always believed that law enforcement itself is the best publicity, so we insist on releasing typical cases to the public through television, Internet, print media and our official website.

In the future, we will continue to improve the transparency of law enforcement, and also welcome supervision from society.