Since 2011, the anti-monopoly department of the National Development and Reform Commission has conducted anti-monopoly investigations on the distribution and after-sales links of the automobile industry for three years. The reporter learned from authoritative persons and relevant industry associations that the first batch of investigation and punishment will be within the month. “Receiving the Netâ€: At least 12 Japanese parts companies will face a total of more than 1 billion penalties; while Audi, Chrysler and several other auto companies have been convicted of penalties, the amount of the ticket remains suspenseful.
Under the circumstance that the anti-monopoly power is becoming more and more obvious, the anti-monopoly path of “killing monkeys to see chickens†not only makes large-scale “exploratory†price cuts for multinational auto companies, but also gradually aligns domestic industry supervision and civil litigation with international standards. .
A huge amount of fines will be put on the vehicle company's punishment and remain suspense. The reporter learned from authoritative sources that at least 12 Japanese parts companies will face a total of more than 1 billion yuan, and the monopolistic behavior of Audi and Chrysler has also been identified. The corresponding penalty will be imposed and the relevant results will be announced as soon as possible this month. Previously, the reason for the large-scale "exploratory" price reduction of vehicle manufacturers and Audi's public "acceptance of mistakes" may be related to the existence of a certain ruling space for the amount of the fine.
The spokesperson of the National Development and Reform Commission said in early August that after investigating some auto manufacturers, parts and components manufacturers and dealers that seriously violated the Anti-Monopoly Law, they will deal with them according to the law. Among them, the investigation into the monopoly case of auto parts and bearing prices for 12 Japanese companies has been completed, and will be punished according to law.
The reporter learned that the fines for a single vehicle company may vary greatly depending on the scope of the fine sales calculation and the proportion of the penalty amount. Previously, the reason for the large-scale "exploratory" price reduction of vehicle manufacturers and Audi's public "acceptance of mistakes" may be related to the existence of a certain ruling space for the amount of the fine.
Article 46 of the Anti-monopoly Law stipulates: "If an operator violates the provisions of this Law and reaches or implements a monopoly agreement, the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency shall order it to stop the illegal act, confiscate the illegal income, and impose one percent of the annual sales. The above-mentioned fine of less than 10%"; Article 47 stipulates: "If an operator violates the provisions of this Law and abuses the dominant position of the market, the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency shall order it to stop the illegal act, confiscate the illegal income, and serve the previous year. A fine of more than one percent to less than ten percent of sales."
According to authoritative sources, taking the law enforcement punishment of the Audi brand as an example, from the scope of sales calculation of fines, the annual income of the sales area of ​​more than 4 billion yuan, up to FAW-Volkswagen China last year in the country 3000 The income of about 100 million yuan, multiplied by the 1% or 10% penalty lower limit or upper limit ratio, the difference can reach 800 times.
However, regardless of the final ticket size, this punishment has created a history of anti-monopoly in the domestic auto industry. Compared with the strong anti-monopoly of the foreign auto industry, China's relevant law enforcement can be justified.
Statistics show that in recent years, the United States and Europe have conducted anti-monopoly investigations on many Japanese auto parts companies, and the penalties can be unprecedented. According to the US Department of Justice, since the first allegations in 2011, as of the end of 2013, there were more than 20 Japanese companies and individuals, allegedly accused of manipulating prices and colluding bids in the US auto market, totaling more than 1.6 billion. The dollar is fine.
"Some Japanese companies surrender to the US and European anti-monopoly departments, but they do not bow in China." Relevant anti-monopoly officials told reporters. In this regard, some experts and anti-monopoly departments said that in the case that the national anti-monopoly department has set a precedent for issuing high-priced penalties to Chinese and foreign illegal enterprises, it is necessary to strengthen anti-monopoly law enforcement penalties in accordance with the law, so that car companies can no longer test China's Antitrust bottom line.
Since the implementation of the Anti-Monopoly Law, the national price anti-monopoly department has imposed a fine of 449 million yuan on China’s two major liquor giants and 353 million yuan on six overseas LCD panel companies. The enforcement penalties for Chinese and foreign companies are all Really.
In addition to the unresolved penalty for Audi, Chrysler and other vehicle companies involved in the case, Mercedes-Benz has also been named by the National Development and Reform Commission. A spokesman for the National Development and Reform Commission said that in the near future, the anti-monopoly branch of the Jiangsu Provincial Price Bureau has conducted anti-monopoly investigations on Mercedes-Benz dealers in five cities including Suzhou and Wuxi. On August 4, the Shanghai Municipal Development and Reform Commission and the Jiangsu Provincial Price Bureau belonged to The Anti-Monopoly Bureau organized its forces and conducted an investigation into the Mercedes-Benz Shanghai office. "Whether there is a monopolistic behavior in Mercedes-Benz, it is currently investigating and collecting evidence," the spokesman said.
Some legal circles said that multinational auto companies have made high profits in China in the past few years. China's anti-monopoly law enforcement should strengthen, on the one hand to protect the interests of Chinese consumers, on the other hand, it is also in line with the anti-monopoly investigation and enforcement in Europe and the United States.
Car companies rushed to respond to anti-monopoly investigations "exploratory" price reduction models and limited range Although they have not officially received a ticket, but on August 11 FAW-Volkswagen Audi has stated that it has violated the law and expressed sincere acceptance of punishment, this is a car for nearly a month. Since the "price reduction" tide, the first initiative to explicitly recognize illegal car companies. However, the reporter's survey statistics found that although many car companies responded positively to the survey, the price cuts and price cuts were limited, mostly with "testing nature."
It is understood that in order to cooperate with the National Development and Reform Commission's anti-monopoly investigation work, on August 8, Zhang Weijie, general manager of FAW-Volkswagen Automotive Co., Ltd., and Shi Shuwen, executive general manager of FAW-Volkswagen Audi Sales Division, Ge Shuwen, and related The person in charge of the regional market went to the Price Supervision, Inspection and Anti-Monopoly Bureau of the National Development and Reform Commission and made a report on the relevant situation.
Regarding the questions and requirements raised by the National Development and Reform Commission's Price Supervision and Inspection and Anti-Monopoly Bureau, Zhang Yujie said that in response to the problems, FAW-Volkswagen Audi has taken measures to stop the violations. FAW-Volkswagen Audi will sincerely accept the handling of this matter by relevant state departments and further strengthen the regulation and management of regional sales and service business.
Unlike Audi’s “open mistakesâ€, which was named by the National Development and Reform Commission, since Jaguar Land Rover China became the first car company to publicly announce price cuts on July 25, including Mercedes-Benz, Chrysler, BMW and many Japanese brands. Most of them only announced price cuts in response to anti-monopoly investigations. Among them, the price of the adjusted vehicles was less, and most of the automakers lowered the price of spare parts.
Among them, Jaguar Land Rover China's manufacturer's guidance price for three luxury cars was lowered by an average of 200,000 yuan, Chrysler's flagship product Jeep Grand Cherokee SR T 8 was lowered by 65,000 yuan, and the price of Grand Cherokee's 5.7L flagship version was lowered by 45,000 yuan. The price reduction of brands such as Audi, BMW and Mercedes is limited to parts and components.
Mercedes-Benz said that through this adjustment, the price of some repair parts was reduced by an average of 15%; while BMW said that more than 2,000 products including body, compressor, generator, battery and brake discs, the average drop of 20%.
Anti-monopoly law enforcement shocked the industry supervision of multinational auto companies and civil litigation or current breakthrough experts said that the anti-monopoly power will not only be limited to the "exploratory" price reduction of multinational auto companies, but also the anti-monopoly path of "killing monkeys to chickens". Domestic industry supervision and civil litigation are gradually in line with international standards.
Su Hua, an associate researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, who participated in the anti-monopoly argument, pointed out that the price agreements, resale price restrictions, geographical and customer restrictions, and tying in the domestic automobile distribution and after-sales links have violated the anti-monopoly. Vertical monopoly behavior prohibited by the Law. People in the anti-monopoly department said that the vertical monopoly and abuse of market dominance of some multinational auto companies in the Chinese market are not only inconsistent with the exemption clauses in the Anti-Monopoly Law, but also in the Chinese market in the past few years as experience. Many cases of "different prices in the same car" are even more helpless for consumers.
In the automobile distribution chain, many consumers have already blamed the "this shop only sells a certain place" or "sells a car tying insurance", but how is the "same price of the same car" realized? Take BMW "535ixD rive", the current domestic market manufacturer's guide price is about 800,000 yuan, but in the US market, the price of this model is equivalent to RMB 350,000. The reporter calculated that even if the total amount of tariffs, value-added tax and consumption tax paid by the imported car is about 90%, the domestic manufacturer's guide price is still much higher than the US market.
Relevant investigations found that the "Automobile Brand Sales Management Implementation Measures" was released in the past ten years. Most multinational auto companies set up wholly-owned subsidiaries in China as "general distributors" and unified management of the national distribution network. Multinational auto companies control the core links of production, import, distribution and other value chains, and balance the income of each link through means of connected transactions to maximize their overall interests. Relevant industry associations and anti-monopoly departments found in the survey that in reality, multinational auto companies sell low-priced imported cars to the general dealers they control, and then sell them to 4S stores at high prices, and implement resale price restrictions.
In the after-sales segment of the automobile, the monopoly behavior of the vehicle and parts companies on the price agreement and restrictions of the accessories also caused the abnormality of the “zero ratio†of the whole vehicle of some brands (the sum of the price of the parts and the sales price of the whole vehicle) Ratio). In a survey data released by the China Insurance Industry Association and the China Automobile Maintenance Industry Association, the Beijing-based Mercedes-Benz C-Class has a staggering 1,273.31%.
At the end of last year, Audi Sales Division issued a notice to all dealers in the province in a certain area. In fact, all 4S dealers in the region are required to raise the standard price of Audi maintenance from this year. At the same time, some dealers have also reached an interest alliance with the car companies, and the "polypoly of the group" has been made public. In the 2013 annual report, A-share listed company Zhangzhou Development declared high-profile, “taking 'cultivation shop' as the primary strategy of automobile tradeâ€.
Feng Jun, dean of the Beijing Institute of Automotive Technology, pointed out that foreign car companies are exploiting the Chinese policy, in order to increase the price of parts and components to obtain huge profits. Experts from relevant industry associations and anti-monopoly departments said that the monopoly of automobile distribution and after-sales links is widespread in the Chinese market. The first round of corporate anti-monopoly targets are concentrated in multinational auto companies. First, the market share and influence of these auto companies are large. There are some vertical monopoly and abuse of market dominance, which have a bad influence on distribution and after-sales links; second, the compatibility of low-end brand cars is strong, and the monopoly control is weaker than high-end luxury cars; It is the legal compliance of multinational auto companies abroad, but they have turned a blind eye to anti-monopoly regulations in the Chinese market. Therefore, “killing monkeys to see chickens†is a punishment for multinational auto companies, and will also shock the industry’s high, middle and low Class car enterprises.
In addition to the domestic industry regulatory standards to be in line with international standards, the anti-monopoly department's enforcement penalties may also bring breakthroughs in domestic civil litigation.
In the case of a consumer suing a German car company and a Japanese car company, the plaintiff’s request was rejected by the Changsha court and the Qingdao court in the first instance. The disputes in both cases were tying repair services when the 4S shop sold the original parts. Why do consumers always lose when they resort to the Anti-Monopoly Law? In this regard, the legal profession said that after the administrative punishment of the monopoly department of the National Development and Reform Commission, consumer civil litigation will have a more sufficient basis, and it is believed that the judicial interpretation of the Supreme Law will be more refined, and the civil enterprises faced by the car enterprises at that time. Litigation pressures may increase.