January, 2014 [Decisions]

1. When marketing the "Jiang Tan She (transliteration) presale homes, Ming Da (transliteration) Construction Co., Ltd. did not provide the list of unit shares and also failed to disclose the information about part of the ground floor of Unit A1 being communal property before signature of contract, and yet demanded that homebuyers compensate for the difference when handing over the homes. The deceptive conduct was likely to affect trading order and was in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Act. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$500,000.
2. As a result of a decision achieved at a meeting, the Land Administration Agent Guild of Taoyuan County established a reference list of charge standards and distributed the list among its members. The practice not only restricted the business activity of the members,butwas alsolikely to affect the supply-demand function of the relevant market.It was in violation of the regulation against concerted actions set forth in Article 14 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. In addition to ordering the guild to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$400,000.
3. XinZhong (transliteration) Natural Gas Piping Equipment Co., Ltd. distributed large numbers of service notices that the public could easily mistake as coming from their natural gas provider. The company then used the pretext of performing safety inspections to push its gas safety equipment. The marketing approach was deceptive conduct likely to affect trading order in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Act. Besides ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful act and imposing an administrative fine of NT$50,000, the FTC also turned the person responsible for the company over to the justice department as a fraud suspect.
4. BioNew Co., Ltd., a multilevel sales business, violated Article 7 (1) of the Supervisory Regulations Governing Multilevel Sales provided by Article 23-4 of the Fair Trade Act for failing to file with the FTC its changes tothe hierarchical organization, the bonus system, product items and participant contracts within the statutory period. The FTC imposed on the company an administrative fine of NT$100,000.
5. In an advertisement for the "Jia Shan Lin Feng Yi (transliteration)" housing project, JiaShi Lin (transliteration) Construction Co., Ltd. and Jia Shan Lin (transliteration) Realtor Co., Ltd. claimed that the project was "right next to a 10-thousand-ping park" and also marked the park on the corresponding map as "GuangCi (transliteration) Park." The conduct was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to content of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed on each of the two companies an administrative fine of NT$200,000.
6. Docome Life Co., Ltd., a multilevel sales business, violated Article 22 of the Supervisory Regulations Governing Multilevel Sales provided by Article 23-4 of the Fair Trade Act for failing to keep a record of monthly business progress in its main office as required by law. In addition to ordering the company to establish the statutorily required record in its main office and present the proof to the FTC for reference within 30 days after receiving the disposition, the FTC also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$200,000.
7. When marketing the "Shang An Ju (transliteration)" housing project, Ren Pin (transliteration) Development Enterprise Co., Ltd. marked the balconies as part of the interior space in the floor plan for Unit A. The conduct was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to content and use of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed on the company an administrative fine of NT$300,000.
8. Cash Flow Co., Ltd., a multilevel sales business, violated Article 5 (1) of the Supervisory Regulations Governing Multilevel Sales provided by Article 23-4 of the Fair Trade Act for failing to file with the FTC before starting its operations. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$50,000.
9. When marketing its washable ozone kitchen exhaust processor, Bao Li Jie Environmental Corporation claimed online that the product was capable of "solving kitchen exhaust problems to meet EPA regulations," "taking care of kitchen exhaust - saving you from getting fined by the EPA," "washable ozone kitchen exhaust processor: removing up to 99.7% of grease," "eliminating 60%~90% of unpleasant odors,""grease removal performance > 95%," and "reducing smoke by 60%~90%."The wording was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed on the company an administrative fine of NT$50,000.
10. RongTeng (transliteration) Creative Marketing Co., Ltd., a multilevel sales business, violatedArticle 7 (1) of the Supervisory Regulations Governing Multilevel Sales provided by Article 23-4 of the Fair Trade Act for failing to file with the FTC its change of company address within the statutory period. The FTC imposed on the company an administrative fine of NT$50,000.
11. Consulting A POLA Co., Ltd., a multilevel sales business, violatedArticle 7 (1) of the Supervisory Regulations Governing Multilevel Sales provided by Article 23-4 of the Fair Trade Act for failing to file with the FTC its change of person in charge within the statutory period. The FTC imposed on the company an administrative fine of NT$50,000.
12. Taiwan Optical Platform Cable TV advertised its Ha Net broadband Internet service on the company’s website and claimed to be offering the "lowest rates." It was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to price of service in violation of Article 21 (3) in applying mutatis mutandis Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed on the company an administrative fine of NT$50,000.
13. ASUSTeK Computer Inc. claimed in an advertisement that the graphic performance and speed of its tablet computers surpassed those of the products of its competitors. It was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. Meanwhile, the omission of the strengths of other manufacturers in the specification comparison presented in the advertisement gave the overall impression that the quality of products from the company’s competitors was inferior. The comparison was obviously unfair conduct likely to affect trading order in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed on the company an administrative fine of NT$200,000.
    

    《In case of any discrepancy between the English version and the Chinese Version, the latter shall prevail.》