April , 2014 [ Decisions]

1. Jing Jan Retail Business Co. Ltd. held a raffle as part of its third anniversary celebration and the first prize was “free residence in the Jing Jan Happy Home for 10 years + a Hyundai car.” The company offered such an inappropriately large prize to entice the trading counterparts of its competitors to do business with it. The conduct was likely to restrict competition or impede fair competition in violation of Article 19 (3) 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$50,000.
2. Taiwan International Ports Corporation adopted the reinstatement value or current value of buildings as the basis of its calculation of rentals for tenants who had not collaborated in warehouse construction but applied only the original building costs as the calculation basis for tenants who had collaborated in warehouse construction without reassessing the construction cost annual increase rate. It was an unjustifiable practice of discriminative treatment imposed on cargo handling businesses renting essential facilities to run their operations as well as abuse of market status by a monopolistic enterprise in violation of Subparagraph 4 of Article 10 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC ordered the company to establish necessary corrective measures before Jan. 1, 2015.
3. Cashbox Partyworld Co., Ltd. and Holiday Co., Ltd. often operated jointly but never filed a merger notification with the FTC as required by law. Both companies violated Article 11 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC, acting according to Article 13 (1) and Article 40 (1) of the same act, ordered them to cease and correct their unlawful act, and also imposed an administrative fine of NT$5 million on Cashbox Partyworld Co., Ltd. and of NT$4 million on Holiday Co., Ltd. The fines totaled NT$9 million. 
4. XinXin Natural Gas Piping Equipment Co. printed and distributed service notices that could easily mislead people into believing the company was an affiliate of their natural gas provider. The company then used the pretext of conducting safety inspections to push its gas safety equipment. The overall marketing approach was a deceptive practice likely to affect trading order in violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company on Jul. 4, 2013. However, it continued to apply the same practice and apparently never stopped the aforesaid unlawful act. Besides acting according to the second section of Article 41 (1) of the Fair Trade Act and ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful act, the FTC also transferred the case to the Justice Department to hold XinXin Natural Gas Piping Equipment Co. responsible for its fraudulent conduct.
5. An Xin (transliteration) Enterprise Co., an LPG bottle shock proofing device business, held “new technology presentations” and offered gifts to attract people with no intention of making any purchases to attend the presentations during which it lied about the prices of products. Then, the company’s salespeople followed these people home and pushed the products on them, forcing them to make purchases when their free will was under suppression. The overall marketing practice was deceptive and obviously unfair conduct likely to affect trading 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.
6. Yong Deng (transliteration) Asphalt Co., Ltd., You Cheng (transliteration) Asphalt Co., Ltd, Jing Huang (transliteration) Construction Co., Ltd., Xin Tong (transliteration) Enterprise Co., Ltd., Zhan Yuan (transliteration) Asphalt Co., Ltd., Kun Qing (transliteration) Asphalt Industrial Co., Ltd., Jian Sheng (transliteration) Enterprise Co., Ltd., Zhi Sheng (transliteration) Asphalt Mixing Factory Co., Ltd., Yong Cheng (transliteration) Asphalt Enterprise Co., Ltd., Shi Cheng (transliteration) Enterprise Co., Ltd., Yong Peng (transliteration) Asphalt Co., Ltd., Hong Zhan (transliteration) Asphalt Co., Ltd., Dong Bo (transliteration) Co., Ltd., Fu GuangXin (transliteration) Asphalt Co., Ltd, JiFeng (transliteration) Asphalt Co., Ltd., and JianZhong (transliteration) Engineering Co., Ltd. (Yong Kang Plant) established a mutual understanding and collected stabilization funds from their downstream customers to push up the price of asphalt. The concerted action was likely to affect the supply-demand function of the asphalt market in the Tainan area and therefore in violation of Article 14 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC respectively imposed on the sixteen companies fines ranging from NT$500,000 to NT$5 million. The fines totaled NT$39.5 million.  
7. Guang Li (transliteration) Asphalt Industrial Co., Ltd., Shan Qing (transliteration) Asphalt Industrial Co., Ltd., Shi Ku (transliteration) Asphalt Industrial Co., Ltd., Ting Long (transliteration) Asphalt Industrial Co., ltd., Hong Ji (transliteration) Asphalt Co., Ltd., Yi Xing (transliteration) Asphalt Co., Ltd., and Yong Zong (transliteration) Enterprise Co., Ltd. jointly raised the price of asphalt and affected the supply-demand function of the asphalt market in the Chiayi area. The conduct was in violation of Article 14 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC ordered the seven companies to immediately cease the unlawful act and also respectively imposed on them fines ranging from NT$500,000 to NT$6.3 million. The fines totaled NT$20.5 million.
8. Taiwan Sakura Corporation restricted the Sakura product retail prices of its distributors and deprived the downstream businesses of their freedom to make price decisions. These businesses were thus unable to decide prices in accordance with the competition they faced and their management strategies. As a consequence, the conduct could weaken intra-brand price competition between different marketing channels and was therefore in violation of Article 18 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$1 million.
9. TOPAX International Co., Ltd. restricted the TOPAX product retail prices of its distributors and deprived the downstream businesses of their freedom to make price decisions. These businesses became unable to make price decisions in accordance with the competition they faced and their management strategies. As a consequence, the conduct could weaken intra-brand price competition between different marketing channels and was therefore in violation of Article 18 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$100,000.
10. In an advertisement for its “Victor JiaFeng (transliteration)” building project posted in Apple Daily, Victoria Construction Co., Ltd. claimed the units were “third-generation hotel-style office venues…return on investment 12%.” 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$300,000 on the company.  
11. Taiwan Realty Co., Ltd. claimed on its website that the company won the “National Brand Yushan Award for its ‘extraordinary contribution.’” The wording was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to quality of service in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. In addition to ordering the company to immediately cease the unlawful act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$50,000 on the company.
12. The wording and comparisons normally applied for regular residential building projects posted by Yieh Mao Corporation and Tong Yang (transliteration) Advertising Co., Ltd. in an advertisement for the “Super New Capital (translation)” building project located in a Class B industrial zone was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to use of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT1.4 million on Yieh Mau Corporation and NT$600,000 on Tong Yang Advertising Co., Ltd.
13. The Taiwan branch of Dutch GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. claimed in a TV commercial for the “Sensodyne” toothpaste for sensitive teeth that“ there is no toothpaste for sensitive teeth more effective than Sensodyne.” 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$500,000 on the company.
14. When marketing the “Blue Light City (translation)” building project that was situated in a Class A industrial zone, Yong Yin (transliteration) Construction Co. Ltd. applied wording and facility images normally used for regular residential building projects. The conduct was a false, untrue and misleading representation with regard to use and content of product in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Fair Trade Act. The FTC imposed an administrative fine of NT$3.5 million on the company.
15. Avon Cosmetics Taiwan claimed in advertisements posted on its website and in various media that the “Avon Waters” water purifier had been certified by the US National Sanitation Foundation and also posted the certification label and a document entitled “NSF/ANSI 42,53,55 Approved PMD 03/24/10.” The conduct 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$1 million on the company

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