Administrative litigation involving discriminatory treatments by Taiwan Recycling Corporation
Chinese Taipei
Case:
Administrative litigation involving discriminatory treatments by Taiwan Recycling Corporation
Key Words:
without justifiable reasons, refusal of transactions, discriminatory treatments
Reference:
Administrative Court (85) Pan Tzu No. 3039
Industry:
Waste Disposal Industry (8102)
Relevant Laws:
Summary:
1.Taiwan Recycling Corporation ("TRC") had no contractual or trust relationship with the local PVC bottle recycling operators. However, TRC was the only company that executed a “Processing Agreement for Waste PVC Beverage Bottles” with the Soda Association. Therefore, TRC was the monopolistic enterprise entrusted to handle waste PVC bottles from recycling companies that had executed the “Agreement for Recycling/ Sales of Waste PVC Bottle & Borrowing of Packing Devices” with the Soda Association. Pursuant to the above agreements, TRC's operation had a direct impact on the formation of contract and payment between the recycling companies and the Soda Association. TRC played a vital role in the Soda Association's recycling system for waste PVC bottles. In accordance with the above two agreements, the Soda Association authorized TRC to examine waste PVC bottles from recycling companies. To be exact, TRC had the right to examine waste bottles and was responsible for transporting waste bottle bricks (compacted from waste PVC bottles) from Tung Ying Co. to recycle/regenerating plants. Only when disputes arising from the examination of the waste bottle bricks could not be resolved did the Soda Association, Hsi Fu Foundation and recycling companies intervene for a solution. In the event of any dispute, the Soda Association tended to compromise for a solution and did not agree to TRC's practice of suspending the transportation services or forfeiting the cargo. Without a prior authorization of the Soda Association, TRC unilaterally refused to take waste PVC bottles from Tung Ying on the ground that 3 out of the 27 waste bottle bricks contained impurities and were defective. It was not until February 4, 1994 that TRC resumed its transportation services for Tung Ying's bottle bricks, causing injury to Tung Ying. Since TRC's refusal did not meet any one of the situations set forth in Article 23 of the Enforcement Rules of the Fair Trade Law, such act was without justifiable reasons. Furthermore, even if the quality of part of Tung Ying's waste PVC bottles was open to dispute, TRC should have limited its refusal to the bottle bricks in question before the disputes were resolved. TRC's refusal to take all bottle bricks from Tung Ying, with or without defects, was improper.
2.Without justifiable reasons, TRC refused to take waste PVC bottles from Tung Ying between November 8, 1993 and January 1994, causing Tung Ying to pile up 168 tons of waste PVC bottles valued at about NT$9.2 million and incur cash flow problems. As a result, Tung Ying could not afford to pay the consumer for the recycle of PVC bottles and could no longer operate PVC bottle recycling service in 1994. TRC's refusal to take such bottles obviously undermined the free and fair competition on the part of Tung Ying. Accordingly, the Fair Trade Commission is of the opinion that TRC's terminating its existing or future business relationship with Tung Ying, without justifiable reasons, while maintaining transactions with other companies in the same industry constituted "refusal of transaction" and “discriminatory treatments” under Article 19(i) and (ii) of the Fair Trade Law. The disposition was rendered by the Commission pursuant to Article 41 of the Fair Trade Law under which TRC shall cease its discriminatory treatments, which are detrimental to the market. It was not in violation of any law and thus should be sustained.
Summarized by Ch'en, Chun-t'ing
Supervised by Lu, Yu-ch'in
Appendix:
Taiwan Recycling Corporation’s Uniform Invoice No.: 23012252