| In April2012, after countries banned the use of public funds to buy high-end liquor,somehigh-end winery,including Maotai and wuliangye has organized dealer meeting, Requiringthe resale price of high-end wine shall not be less than their specified criteria. Given theeighteenth big victory meeting, the standing committee of the central committee of thecommunist party of China puts forward to improve the work style, close ties with the masses,high-end liquor,to some extent, dependending on public funds for purchasing, have sonmechange in the demand structure, and seriously affected the expectations of dealers forhigh-end liquor to continue to rise in price, so that the sliding on the retail price. In January2013, maotai and wuliangye have recalled for the dealer shall not be less than the price thatthey set the minimum resale price sale, the news of maotai first penalizing the defaultdistributor has received extensive attention of the media and the social from all walks oflife.The authority of anti-monopoly enforcement under the state council put an antitrustinvestigation for maotai, wuliangye for the restrictions of resale prices and offered a giantticket from the five years since the implementation of the anti-monopoly law in China so far.Aclose attention from theoretical and practical circles was caused after the publication of theticket.The reason why the social public influence is so great, in addition to the above reasons,the more important is whether the antitrust enforcement qualitative is legal and reasonable, aswell as the related legal problems in the process of antitrust enforcement.This article aims toprovide some useful reference about the treatment of similar cases in the judicial practicethrougt a comprehensive analysis of the caseThe full text is divided into four parts:The first part introduces the main facts and punishment decision paper. In February19,2012, China broadcast network news reports that the anti-monopoly authority under the StateCouncil will penalize449000000yuan to the giant industy of wine Moutai, Wuliangye forantitrust. In February22nd,the same year, the anti-monopoly authority under the State Council confirmed that the punishment is true. The anti monopoly law enforcement agency argues thatthe lowest price Kweichow Moutai wine sales limited to dealers across the country to thirdpeople Moutai wine sales are defined, in violation of the "Regulations of the people’sRepublic of China anti monopoly law" article fourteenth. Thinking of the punishment for thefourteen dealers is umreasonable by Yibin Wuliangye.the lowest price of the dealer’s sales ofliquor to third people are defined, and the implementation of a liquor sales price of thevertical monopoly agreement is in violation of the "anti monopoly law,which exclude andrestrict competition of the market, harming the interests of consumers.The second part summarizes the viewpoints and controversial focus of dispute case. Forthe defination of monopoly,there are significant differences in practice:a view argues that thiscase belongs to monopoly.Moutai and Wuliangye’s pricing strategy is clearly in violation ofthe "anti monopoly law" fourteenth article second.The econd kinds of views see that the casedoes not belong to the monopoly.The destiniation of "Anti-monopoly law" is to prevent andsuppervise the monopolistic behavior,protect fair competition in the market,improveeconomic efficiency,protect consumer’s interests and social public interests,promote thehealthy development of social market economy,however, Moutai and Wuliangye belong tohigh-end wine ranks,has become a luxury,not about beneficial to the people’s livehood,notrelated to the public interests,and liquor industry is a highly competitive industry,theadjustment of price is its inner change within an industry countries limit the publicconsumption of high-end liquor,which belongs to the category of enterprise independentpricing,it doen not belong to the monopoly.For the anti monopoly law enforcement, there are two views: the first view is that the anti monopoly law enforcement agency for Moutai and Wuliangye’s punishment is legitimateand reasonable, which helps maintaining the market price stable,safeguard the legitimaterights and interests of consumers.The second view argues that the qualitative basis onwo company limited price sector law enforcement agencies of the State Council go against thecurrent regulationgs from the surface, the legal liability is based on the forty-sixth,butthrought the entire process of the case,there exists some law flaw on the subject, procedure and discretion, which not only not fair and justice for the companyfor the penalty,but also aviolation of antitrust law spirit and is not conducive to the future similar cases ofpunishment for reference, also cannot make economic constitution really get promotion andplay its due role specification.The third part is the legal analysis of the focus on the dispute case. The first issue is about whether the case is related with monopoly, whether to be investigated for legal liablity of theparties by applying anti-monopoly law.First, the article carries on the legal analysiss to thelegal monopoly; Second issue is whether there exists some problems in the process ofthe anti monopoly law enforcement.The focus of controversy are analyzed from three questiosindividually,namely, the anti monopoly law enforcement agency,the antimonopoly lawprocedures, the anti monopoly law enforcement amount,which are expounded in turn.The fourth part is the reflection on the determination of the similar case processing. Through the analysis of this case, the interpretation of the spirit of the legislation, as well as the factors in the anti monopoly law enforcement should be considered, in order to apply the lawswell, warn and prevent the occurration of the similar and misconduct case.In this part,the monopoly law enforcement main body is from the considerations for value of theantitrust law, the considerations of subject, the consideration of discretion, the considerationof the protection on consumer in a comprehensive analysis. |
PDF Full Text Request