March, 2014 [Decisions]

1. When marketing the “Da Xue Yang (transliteration)” presale houses, Hao Han (transliteration) Development Construction Co., Ltd. requested that homebuyers pay a deposit to see the contract. It was a deceptive or obviously unfair practice able to affect market order in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC ordered the company to immediately cease the unlawful act and also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$600,000.
2. When marketing the “He Kang (transliteration) New Era (translation)” presale houses, He Kang (transliteration) Construction Co., Ltd. requested that homebuyers pay a deposit to see the contract. It was a deceptive or obviously unfair practice able to affect market order in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC ordered the company to immediately cease the unlawful act and also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$500,000.
3. Qin Jia (transliteration) Development Co., Ltd. failed to provide the list of unit shares and also requested that homebuyers pay a deposit to see the contract. Both were deceptive or obviously unfair conduct able to affect market order in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC ordered the company to immediately cease the unlawful act and also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$600,000.
4. Privately-run Xue Lin (transliteration) Short-term Supplementary Education Institute in Taipei posted false advertising when recruiting franchisees for “Liu Yi Children’s English” and also did not fully disclose important trading information in writing to trading counterparts. The said acts were respectively in violation of Article 21 and Article 24 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$150,000 on each of the representatives of the institute and the person appointed to conduct franchisee recruitment.
5. When marketing the “UCB super-capacitor battery,” UC Battery Co., Ltd. advertised the product as having a “battery life at least twice as long as that of lead-acid batteries.” 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 an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
6. When marketing the “Shan Qi (transliteration)” building project, Farglory Construction Co., Ltd. and Farglory Land Development Co., Ltd. claimed the “ecological conservation effort on the 3.66 million ping site is the best example” and the surrounding environment was a “3.66 million ping demonstrative ecological conservation zone in the greater Beitou area.” The wording 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 an administrative fine of NT$200,000 on each of the two companies.
7. Jing Zhuang (transliteration) Engineering Co., Ltd. posted on its company website the wording of “Jing Zhuang – established in 1999” and “Jing Zhuang Engineering – a winner of the 8^th National Quality Guarantee Golden Award!” with photos serving as evidence. Meanwhile, the web pages of “engineering project examples” and “guided tours through project sites” on the company’s website also contained a number of pictures dated before the company was established. The conduct was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality of service in violation of Article 21 (3) in applying mutatis mutandis Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
8. Shin Kong Mitsukoshi Department Store Co., Ltd. posted an advertisement for the promotional activity of “free gifts for credit card payments achieving the set amount” but failed to disclose the conditions on the types of consumption. It was in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
9. Masterhold International Co., Ltd. claimed in an advertisement for the “Han Ma Wang (transliteration)” battery that the product had the “battery life of at least twice that of lead-acid batteries” and could “last 1-2 years longer than lead-acid batteries.” 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 an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
10. Hong Sen (transliteration) Enterprise Co., Ltd., a multilevel marketing business, failed to process participant withdrawal and return of products within 30 days as required by law after participants cancelled and terminated the participant contract. The conduct was in violation of Article 20 (2) and 21 (2) in applying mutatis mutandis Article 24 of the Multi-level Marketing Supervision Act. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC also imposed on it an administrative fine of NT$1 million. 
11. Mr. Home International Development Co., Ltd. posted on its company website the wording of “ZhongheSenZhi Jun (transliteration) housing project at No. XXX, Lane 299, Yuantong Road, Zhonghe District, New Taipei City…rate of return: 13%.” It was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality of service in violation of Article 21 (3) in applying mutatis mutandis Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$100,000 on the company.

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