A practicing lawyer refused to produce relevant materials within the time limit prescribed by the Commission without due cause, constituting a violation of the provisions of Article 43 of the Fair Trade Law
Chinese Taipei
Case:
A practicing lawyer refused to produce relevant materials within the time limit prescribed by the Commission without due cause, constituting a violation of the provisions of Article 43 of the Fair Trade Law
Key Ｗords:
refusing to produce relevant materials, lawyer
Reference:
Fair Trade Commission Decision of April 2, 1997 (the 283rd Commission Meeting); Disposition (86) Kung Ch'u Tzu No. 050
Industry:
Lawyers (7110)
Relevant Laws:
Summary:
1. It was complained that Princeton Company, a US enterprise, and Weiyuan Company, a Korean enterprise, had entrusted a lawyer, Mr. Wu, to issue notification letters to trading counterparts of the complainants including the agents and distributors of the complainants, alleging that the complainants' products had involved in patent infringement. A violation of the Fair Trade Law was thus claimed against Princeton and Weiyuan Company.
2. In order to know if Princeton Company and Weiyuan Company had established representative offices or corporate organizations within the territory of Chinese Taipei, the Commission on 12 June 1996 and 3 September of the same year requested Mr. Wu in writing, to provide relevant corporate documents of the two said companies which could show whether or not they had established branches, subsidiaries, representative offices or agencies in Chinese Taipei, if so, and the names, phone numbers, and addresses of liaison persons, along with a copy of the power of attorney from said companies so as to facilitate further investigations. Nonetheless, after receiving the third letter of request from the Commission on 5 November 1996, Mr. Wu failed to produce the aforesaid materials within the time limit and did not make explanations for such situation, either.
3. The first half of Article 43 of the Fair Trade Law provides that, "In the course of an investigation made by the Fair Trade Commission under the provisions of Article 27, if the party to be investigated refuses, without due cause, to accept the investigation, to appear at the hearing to make statements, or to submit relevant account books, documents or evidence within a given time limit, the said party shall be subject to a fine of not more than NT$ 250,000 and not less than NT$ 20,000."
4. The investigation showed that the postal attestation letters in question had been sent out by the sanctioned party, which proved beyond doubt that the sanctioned party was important party in this case. Therefore, Mr. Wu, the sanctioned partywho had the obligation of submitting to the Commission's investigation, refused to produce relevant materials within the time limit without due cause and thus shall be imposed a civil penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 43 of the Fair Trade Law.
Summarized by Li, Yen-hsi
＊＊: For information of translation, click here
[Browse by APEC Member
Economies] [Browse by Subject Categories] [Home]
[Decisions] [Approvals] [Interpretations] [Administrative Guidance]