The NDRC Penalized 18 PVC Enterprises To Impose Price Fixing Violations.

According to the world clothing shoes and hats net, the day before yesterday, the national development and Reform Commission made 18 PVC resins to China.

The production and operation enterprises shall be punished for implementing the illegal act of price monopoly.

Joint efforts to raise prices 18 PVC enterprises to eat the largest domestic monopoly ticket

It has been found that the 18 enterprises involved have reached and implemented a monopoly agreement on unified price rise since March 2016, through the WeChat group communication and holding meetings.

This act violated China's "anti-monopoly law", resulting in the domestic "PVC" market price less than half a year or more than 40%, seriously damaged.

Competition order aggravated the cost of downstream enterprises.

The antimonopoly Department of the national development and Reform Commission has imposed a fine of 2% of the relevant market sales in 2016, led by the leading Hubei Yihua Refco Group Ltd and China Salt Gillett Salt Chemical Group Co., Ltd.

The 16 involved enterprises in subordinate status were fined 1% of the relevant market sales in 2016, and the 18 involved enterprises fined a total of 457 million yuan.

This is the largest ticket issued by China's anti monopoly law to domestic enterprises in the past nine years since the implementation of the "anti monopoly law", involving 18 enterprises across 11 provinces and autonomous regions, and the types of enterprises include central enterprises, state-owned enterprises and private enterprises.

WeChat group brewing price increase agreement

At the end of 2016, the national development and Reform Commission received reports from the downstream industry associations and enterprises that the "PVC" raw material prices rose unreasonably, and the anti-monopoly authorities immediately launched a law enforcement investigation.

In the early stage of the investigation, 18 PVC manufacturing enterprises were held in the name of "Northwest chlor alkali union" from March to December last year.

Although the data are highly consistent, investigators did not find any paper agreement on the agreed price increase during the investigation. The relevant person in charge of the enterprise also denied that they had agreed to raise the price together without any core evidence and the investigation work was in a stalemate.

The antimonopoly Department of the national development and Reform Commission decided to send multi case investigators to 11 provinces and regions. At the same time, the 18 enterprises were thoroughly collected evidence. When the case was almost deadlocked, investigators found clues in the WeChat group established by an enterprise leader.

Investigators told reporters that in the WeChat group, enterprises announced price increases and proposed price increases. Other enterprises involved responded positively to their support. Before it was proposed, they responded, which resulted in a very complete horizontal price monopoly agreement.

Shi Jianzhong, vice president of China University of Political Science and Law, pointed out that for a horizontal monopoly agreement, it is generally believed that as long as there are two or more competitors, it should have been competition. If a agreement on limiting the price limit and the number of market restrictions was reached, it would constitute a horizontal monopoly agreement.

Monopoly output exceeds 70%, who will not execute punishment?

Jointly pushing up the "PVC" market price has become the common goal of the 18 involved enterprises, and how to ensure the concerted action of price adjustment, the leading enterprises are also painstaking, not only dividing the sales area, setting up

The lowest price standard of sales also warns other enterprises to punish whoever fails to execute.

In this case, the illegal activities of the enterprises involved have caused damage to the market competition order, downstream operators and consumers' rights and interests.

WeChat chat content can be used as electronic evidence.

In the anti monopoly punishment, WeChat group has become a breakthrough in the case. So can the chat content of the enterprises involved in WeChat group as evidence to identify illegal activities?

It is understood that the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People's court clearly stipulates that electronic data can be used as evidence, that is to say, the 18 enterprises involved can chat as text, voice or video chat, and their contents can be used as evidence to identify violations.

In addition, Shi Jianzhong, vice president of China University of Political Science and Law, said that the agreement in daily life requires all parties to reach agreement and have a real meaning, while monopoly agreements and contract law are different from the agreements normally recognized.

More interesting reports, please pay attention to the world clothing shoes and hats net.