Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China

(Adopted at the 29th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People's Congress on August 30, 2007, and amended in accordance with the Decision on Amending the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China adopted at the 35th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Thirteenth National People's Congress on June 24, 2022)

Chapter I General Provisions  

Chapter II Monopoly Agreements 

Chapter III Abuse of Dominant Market Position     

Chapter IV Concentration of Undertakings    

Chapter V Abuse of Administrative Power to Eliminate or Restrict Competition

Chapter VI Investigation into Suspected Monopolistic Practices  

Chapter VII Legal Liability        

Chapter VIII Supplementary Provisions  

Chapter I  General Provisions

Article 1 This Law is enacted for the purpose of preventing and restraining monopoly, protecting fair competition in the market, encouraging innovation, enhancing economic efficiency, safeguarding the interests of consumers and the public, and promoting the healthy development of the socialist market economy.

Article 2 This Law is applicable to monopolistic practices in economic activities within the territory of the People's Republic of China, and it is applicable to monopolistic practices outside the territory of the People's Republic of China which eliminate or restrict competition in the domestic market of China.

Article 3 For purposes of this Law, monopolistic practices include:

(1)   conclusion of monopoly agreements between undertakings;

(2)   abuse of the dominant market position by undertakings; and

(3)   concentration of undertakings that has or may have the effect of eliminating or restricting competition.

Article 4 Anti-monopoly work shall be carried out under the leadership of the Communist Party of China.

The state adheres to market-oriented and law-based principles, reinforces the fundamental position of competition policy, formulates and implements competition rules which are compatible with the socialist market economy, improves macro regulation, and advances a unified, open, competitive and orderly market system.

Article 5 The state shall establish and improve a fair competition review system.

Administrative organs and the organizations authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of public administration shall conduct fair competition reviews when formulating regulations concerning economic activities of market participants.

Article 6 Undertakings may, through fair competition and voluntary association, implement concentrations pursuant to the law, expand the scale of their business operations, and enhance their competitiveness in the market.

Article 7 Any undertaking holding a dominant market position shall not abuse such a position to eliminate or restrict competition.

Article 8 With respect to the industries which are controlled by the state-owned sector and have a bearing on the lifeline of the national economy or national security as well as the industries where monopolistic operation or selling is exercised pursuant to the law, the state shall protect the lawful business operations of undertakings in these industries, and pursuant to the law, supervise and regulate their business operations and the prices of the goods and services provided by them to protect consumer interests and facilitate technological advancement.

The undertakings specified in the preceding paragraph shall operate pursuant to the law, be honest, adopt faithful and strict self-regulation, accept public oversight, and shall not damage the interests of consumers by taking advantage of their control over the industries or position of monopolistic operation or selling.

Article 9 An undertaking shall not engage in any of the monopolistic practices prohibited by this Law by taking advantage of data, algorithms, technologies, capital advantages or platform rules, etc.

Article 10 Administrative organs and the organizations authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of public administration shall not abuse their administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition.

Article 11 The state shall improve and enhance anti-monopoly rules and regulations, strengthen anti-monopoly regulatory forces, improve the regulatory capacity and the modernization level of the regulatory system, strengthen anti-monopoly law enforcement and judicial work, try monopoly cases impartially and efficiently pursuant to the law, improve the mechanism for coordinating administrative enforcement with judicial procedure, and maintain a fair competition order.

Article 12 The State Council shall establish an anti-monopoly commission in charge of organizing, coordinating and giving guidance to the anti-monopoly work, which shall perform the following duties:

(1)   studying and drafting relevant competition policies;

(2)   organizing the investigation and assessment of competition in the market and issuing assessment reports;

(3)   formulating and issuing anti-monopoly guidelines;

(4)   coordinating anti-monopoly administrative enforcement work; and

(5)   other duties as prescribed by the State Council.

The composition of and procedural rules for the anti-monopoly commission shall be prescribed by the State Council.

Article 13 The anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council shall be in charge of unified anti-monopoly law enforcement.

The anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council may, in light of the need of work, authorize the corresponding agencies of the people’s governments of provinces, autonomous regions or municipalities directly under the Central Government to take charge of relevant anti-monopoly law enforcement work in accordance with the provisions of this Law.

Article 14 Trade associations shall reinforce industry self-regulation, steer the undertakings in their respective industries to compete pursuant to the law, operate in compliance and maintain the market competition order.

Article 15 For purposes of this Law, the term “undertaking” refers to any natural person, legal person, or unincorporated organization that engages in manufacturing or business operations or provides services.

For purposes of this Law, the term “relevant market” refers to the scope of the goods or services (hereinafter collectively referred to as “commodities”) for which, and the region where, undertakings compete with each other during a given period of time over specific commodities.

Chapter II  Monopoly Agreements

Article 16 For purposes of this Law, the term "monopoly agreement" refers to any agreement, decision or other concerted practice which eliminates or restricts competition.

Article 17 Undertakings in competitive relationships are prohibited from concluding any of the following monopoly agreements:

(1)   on fixing or changing the prices of commodities;

(2)   on limiting the output or sales of commodities

(3)   on dividing the selling market or the purchasing market for raw materials;

(4)   on restricting the purchase of new technologies or equipment, or the development of new technologies or products;

(5)   on jointly boycotting transactions; and

(6)   any other monopoly agreement determined by the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council.

Article 18 Undertakings are prohibited from concluding any of the following monopoly agreements with their trading counterparties:

(1)   on fixing the prices for resale of commodities to a third party;

(2)   on restricting the minimum prices for resale of commodities to a third party; and

(3)   any other monopoly agreement determined by the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council.

The conclusion of an agreement specified in Sub-paragraph (1) or (2) of the preceding paragraph shall not be prohibited where an undertaking can prove that such an agreement has no effect on eliminating or restricting competition.

The conclusion of an agreement specified in Sub-paragraph (1) or (2) of the first paragraph shall not be prohibited where the undertaking can prove that its market share in the relevant market is below the threshold set by the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council, and that it satisfies other conditions prescribed by the said authority.

Article 19 No undertaking shall organize other undertakings or provide substantive assistance to other undertakings for the conclusion of monopoly agreements.

Article 20 The provisions of Article 17, the first paragraph of Article 18 and Article 19 of this Law are inapplicable where an undertaking can prove an agreement concluded falls under any of the following circumstances:

(1)   for the advancement of technologies, or the research and development of new products;

(2)   for improving product quality, reducing costs, and enhancing efficiency by way of unifying specifications and standards of products, or implementing specialization;

(3)   for improving business operation efficiency and enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized undertakings;

(4)   for serving public interests such as energy conservation, environmental protection or disaster and social relief;

(5)   for alleviating a serious decrease in sales or apparent overproduction caused by an economic recession;

(6)   for safeguarding the legitimate interests in foreign trade or in economic cooperation with foreign counterparties; or

(7)   in any other circumstance as prescribed by laws or regulations of the State Council.

Where, in the case of Sub-paragraphs (1) to (5) of the preceding paragraph, the provisions of Article 17, the first paragraph of Article 18 and Article 19 of this Law are inapplicable, the undertaking shall additionally prove that the agreement concluded will not substantially restrict competition in the relevant market and can benefit consumers.

Article 21 Trade associations shall not organize undertakings within their respective industries to engage in the monopolistic practices prohibited in this Chapter.

Chapter III  Abuse of Dominant Market Position

Article 22 An undertaking holding a dominant market position is prohibited from abusing such a position by engaging in any of the following practices:

(1)   selling commodities at unfairly high prices or purchasing commodities at unfairly low prices;

(2)   selling commodities at prices below cost without justifiable reasons;

(3)   refusing to deal with trading counterparties without justifiable reasons;

(4)   requiring trading counterparties to deal exclusively with itself or with the undertakings designated by it without justifiable reasons;

(5)   conducting tied selling or imposing other unreasonable trading terms on transactions without justifiable reasons;

(6)   applying differential treatment in respect of transaction prices or other trading terms among trading counterparties with equal conditions without justifiable reasons; or

(7)   any other practice of abuse of the dominant market position determined by the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council.

An undertaking holding a dominant market position shall not engage in any practice of abuse of such a position as prescribed in the preceding paragraph by taking advantage of data, algorithms, technologies and platform rules, etc.

For purposes of this Law, the term "dominant market position" means a market position held by an undertaking which has the capacity of controlling the price or quantity of commodities or other transaction terms in a relevant market, or preventing other undertakings from entering or affecting them to enter the relevant market.

Article 23 The dominant market position of an undertaking shall be determined on the basis of the following factors:

(1)   the market share in the relevant market and the competition in the relevant market;

(2)   the ability to control the sales market or the raw material procurement market;

(3)   the financial strength and technical conditions;

(4)   the extent to which other undertakings depend on it in transactions;

(5)   the degree of difficulty for other undertakings to enter the relevant market; and

(6)   other factors related to the determination of the dominant market position held by the undertaking.

Article 24 Where any undertaking is under any of the following circumstances, it may be presumed to hold a dominant market position:

(1)   the market share of one undertaking reaching one half in the relevant market;

(2)   the combined market share of two undertakings reaching two-thirds in the relevant market; or

(3)   the combined market share of three undertakings reaching three-fourths in the relevant market.

Under the circumstances specified in Subparagraph (2) or (3) of the preceding paragraph, if the market share of one of the undertakings is less than one-tenth, such an undertaking shall not be presumed to hold a dominant market position.

An undertaking presumed to hold a dominant market position shall not be considered to hold such a position if it can prove the contrary with evidence.

Chapter IV  Concentration of Undertakings

Article 25 Concentration of undertakings means the following:

(1)   merger of undertakings;

(2)   an undertaking acquiring control over other undertakings through acquiring shares or assets; or

(3)   an undertaking acquiring control over other undertakings or having the ability to exercise a decisive influence on other undertakings through contractual arrangements or other means.

Article 26 Where a concentration of undertakings meets the threshold for notification prescribed by the State Council, the undertaking(s) shall notify in advance the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council and the concentration shall not be implemented in the absence of such notification.

Where a concentration of undertakings does not meet the threshold for notification prescribed by the State Council, but there is evidence showing that the concentration of undertakings has or may have the effect of eliminating or restricting competition, the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council may require a notification by the relevant undertaking(s).

Where a notification fails to be made in accordance with the two preceding paragraphs, the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council shall conduct an investigation pursuant to the law.

Article 27 In any of the following circumstances, the undertaking(s) may dispense with a notification to the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council:

(1)   if one of the undertakings participating in the concentration owns 50 percent or more of the voting shares or assets of each of the other undertakings; or

(2)   if an undertaking not involved in the concentration owns 50 percent or more of the voting shares or assets of each of the undertakings participating in the concentration.

Article 28 The undertaking(s) shall submit the following documents and materials in its concentration notification to the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council:

(1)   a notification letter;

(2)   an explanation of the impact of the concentration on competition in the relevant market;

(3)   the concentration agreement;

(4)   the accounting report of each of the undertakings participating in the concentration for the previous fiscal year, which is audited by an accounting firm; and

(5)   other documents and materials prescribed by the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council.

The notification letter shall contain the names, domiciles, business scopes of the undertakings participating in the concentration, the scheduled date of implementation of the concentration and other matters prescribed by the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council.

Article 29 Where the documents or materials submitted by the undertaking(s) are incomplete, the undertaking(s) shall supplement the relevant documents or materials within the time limit prescribed by the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council. The undertaking(s) that fail to do so within the prescribed time limit shall be deemed to have made no notification.

Article 30 The anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council shall, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the documents and materials submitted by the undertaking(s) which conform to the provisions of Article 28 of this Law, conduct a preliminary review of the intended concentration as notified by the undertakings, decide whether to conduct a further review, and notify the undertakings of its decision in writing. Before the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council makes a decision, the undertakings shall not implement the concentration.

Where the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council decides not to conduct a further review or fails to make a decision within the prescribed period, the undertakings may implement the concentration.

Article 31 Where the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council decides to conduct a further review, it shall, within 90 days from the date of decision, complete the review, decide whether to prohibit the concentration of undertakings, and notify the undertakings of such a decision in writing. Where the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council makes a decision to prohibit the concentration of undertakings, it shall provide the reasons for such a decision. The undertakings shall not implement the concentration during the review period.

Under any of the following circumstances, the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council may, through a written notice to the undertakings, extend the review period prescribed in the preceding paragraph by not more than 60 days:

(1)   where the undertakings consent to such an extension;

(2)   where the documents or materials submitted by the undertakings are inaccurate and require further verification; or

(3)   where a material change to the relevant circumstances has taken place after the undertakings made the notification.

Where the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council fails to make a decision within the prescribed period, the undertakings may implement the concentration.

Article 32 Under any of the following circumstances, the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council may decide to suspend the calculation of the time limit for reviewing the concentration of undertakings and notify the undertakings in writing:

(1)   where the review cannot proceed due to the undertaking(s)’ failure to submit the documents or materials as required ;

(2)   where a new circumstance or fact emerges, which has a material impact on the review of the concentration of undertakings and the review cannot proceed without verification of the circumstance or fact; or

(3)   where a further assessment is needed as to the restrictive conditions attached to the concentration of undertakings and the undertakings have requested a suspension.

The review period shall resume running from the date when the circumstances suspending the calculation of the review period are removed. The anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council shall notify the undertakings in writing.

Article 33 The following factors shall be taken into consideration in the review of the concentration of undertakings:

(1)   the market shares of the undertakings participating in the concentration in the relevant market and their ability to control the market;

(2)   the degree of concentration in the relevant market;

(3)   the impact of the concentration on market entry and technological advancement;

(4)   the impact of the concentration on consumers and other relevant undertakings;

(5)   the impact of the concentration on the development of the national economy; and

(6)   other factors affecting market competition which the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council deems necessary to consider.

Article 34 Where a concentration of undertakings has or may have the effect of eliminating or restricting competition, the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council shall make a decision to prohibit the concentration. If the undertakings, however, can prove that the positive impact of the concentration on competition conspicuously outweighs the adverse impact, or that the concentration is in line with the public interests, the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council may decide not to prohibit the concentration.

Article 35 Where the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council does not prohibit a concentration of undertakings, it may decide to impose restrictive conditions to reduce the adverse impact of such a concentration on competition.

Article 36 The anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council shall, in a timely manner, announce its decision on prohibiting a concentration of undertakings or imposing restrictive conditions on a concentration of undertakings.

Article 37 The anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council shall improve the categorized and tiered reviewing system for concentrations of undertakings, boost pursuant to the law the efforts for reviewing concentrations in important industries concerning, inter alia, the national economy and people's livelihoods, and improve the quality and efficiency of the review.

Article 38 Where a foreign investor participates in a concentration of undertakings by merging with or acquiring a domestic enterprise or by any other means, which involves national security, a national security review shall be conducted in accordance with the relevant regulations of the state, in addition to the review of concentration of undertakings in accordance with this Law.

Chapter V Abuse of Administrative Power to Eliminate or Restrict Competition

Article 39 Any administrative organ or other organization authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of public administration shall not abuse its administrative power to require, or require in a disguised form, entities or individuals to deal in, purchase or use only the commodities supplied by the undertakings designated by them.

Article 40 Any administrative organ or other organization authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of public administration shall not abuse its administrative power, through concluding a cooperation agreement or memorandum with an undertaking or by any other means, to impede other undertakings’ entry into the relevant market or apply discriminatory treatment to other undertakings, thereby eliminating or restricting competition.

Article 41 Any administrative organ or other organization authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of public administration shall not abuse its administrative power to impede the free flow of commodities between different regions by any of the following means:

(1)   imposing discriminatory charge items, implementing discriminatory charge rates, or setting discriminatory prices on non-local commodities;

(2)   applying to non-local commodities technical specifications or inspection standards that are different from those for local commodities of the same types, or adopting discriminatory technical measures, such as redundant inspection or certification, against non-local commodities, thereby restricting the entry of non-local commodities into the local market;

(3)   adopting administrative licensing specifically for non-local commodities, thereby restricting the entry of non-local commodities into the local market;

(4)   erecting barriers or taking other means to prevent non-local commodities from being transported in, or local commodities from being transported out of, the local market; or

(5)   any other means which impedes the free flow of commodities between regions.

Article 42 Any administrative organ or other organization authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of public administration shall not abuse its administrative power to exclude or restrict undertakings’ participation in bidding and other business activities by imposing discriminatory qualification requirements or assessment standards, or refusing to publish information pursuant to the law.

Article 43 Any administrative organ or other organization authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of public administration shall not abuse administrative power and exclude non-local undertakings from investing in or setting up branch offices in the local region, or restrict said activities, or compel, or compel in a disguised form, non-local undertakings to do so, by applying unequal treatment compared with local undertakings or by any other means.

Article 44 Any administrative organ or other organization authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of public administration shall not abuse its administrative power to compel, or compel in a disguised form, undertakings to engage in monopolistic practices prohibited by this Law.

Article 45 Any administrative organ or other organization authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of public administration shall not abuse its administrative power to formulate regulations with contents of eliminating or restricting competition.

Chapter VI  Investigation into Suspected Monopolistic Practices

Article 46 The anti-monopoly law enforcement authority shall investigate any suspected monopolistic practice pursuant to the law.

Any entity and individual shall have the right to report to the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority any suspected monopolistic practice. The anti-monopoly law enforcement authority shall keep the informant confidential.

Where a report is made in writing with relevant facts and evidence provided, the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority shall carry out necessary investigation.

Article 47 When carrying out investigations into suspected monopolistic practices, the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority may take the following measures:

(1)   entering into the business premises or other relevant premises of the undertakings under investigation to carry out inspection;

(2)   examining the undertakings under investigation, the interested parties or other relevant entities or individuals, and requesting them to provide relevant explanations;

(3)   reviewing and copying the relevant documents and materials of the undertakings under investigation, the interested parties and other relevant entities or individuals, such as certificates, agreements, account books, business correspondence and electronic data;

(4)   sealing up or seizing relevant evidence; and

(5)   inquiring about the bank accounts of the undertakings.

The taking of the measures specified in the preceding paragraph shall be reported in writing to, and approved by, the person with principal responsibilities of the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority.

Article 48 Where the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority conducts an investigation into a suspected monopolistic practice, there shall be at least two law enforcement officers, who shall present their law enforcement credentials.

When carrying out an examination or investigation, the law enforcement officers shall make written records which shall be signed by the person being examined or investigated.

Article 49 The anti-monopoly law enforcement authority and its staff members are obligated pursuant to the law to keep confidential the commercial secrets, personal privacy or personal information learned in the course of law enforcement.

Article 50 The undertakings under investigation, the interested parties or other relevant entities or individuals shall cooperate with the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority in performing its duties pursuant to the law, and shall not refuse or obstruct the investigation conducted by the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority.

Article 51 The undertakings under investigation and the interested parties shall have the right to state their opinions. The anti-monopoly law enforcement authority shall verify the facts, reasons and evidence presented by the undertakings under investigation and the interested parties.

Article 52 Where, the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority concludes that the practice constitutes a monopolistic practice after the investigation into and verification of a suspected monopolistic practice, it shall make a decision on handling the case pursuant to the law and may announce the decision.

Article 53 Where, with respect to the suspected monopolistic practice which is under investigation by the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority, the undertaking under investigation commits to adopting specific measures to eliminate the consequences of the practice within a certain period accepted by the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority, the said authority may decide to suspend the investigation. The decision to suspend the investigation shall specify the details of the undertaking’s commitments.

Where the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority decides to suspend the investigation, it shall supervise the undertaking’s fulfillment of its commitments. Where the undertaking has fulfilled its commitments, the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority may decide to terminate the investigation.

The anti-monopoly law enforcement authority shall resume the investigation in any of the following circumstances:

(1)   where the undertaking fails to fulfill its commitments;

(2)   where there is a material change to the facts on which the decision to suspend the investigation was based; or

(3)   where the decision to suspend the investigation was based on incomplete or untrue information provided by the undertaking.

Article 54 The relevant entities and individuals shall cooperate when the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority investigates the suspected abuse of administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition pursuant to the law.

Article 55 Where an undertaking, administrative organ or any other organization authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of public administration is suspected of violating this Law, the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority may hold regulatory talks with its legal representative or person in charge and require it to propose rectification measures.

Chapter VII  Legal Liability

Article 56 Where an undertaking, in violation of this Law, concludes and implements a monopoly agreement, the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority shall order it to cease the violation, confiscate its unlawful gains, and, in addition, impose on it a fine of not less than 1 percent but not more than 10 percent of its turnover of the previous year, or a fine of not more than RMB 5 million yuan in case of no turnover in the previous year. If a monopoly agreement has been concluded but has not been implemented, the undertaking may be fined not more than RMB 3 million yuan. Where the legal representative, any person with principal responsibilities or any directly responsible person of the undertaking is personally liable for concluding the monopoly agreement, a fine of not more than RMB 1 million yuan may be imposed.

Where an undertaking organizes other undertakings or provides substantive assistance to them to conclude a monopoly agreement, the provisions of the preceding paragraph shall apply.

If an undertaking, on its own initiative, reports to the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority about the monopoly agreement it concluded, and provides important evidence, the said authority may, at its discretion, mitigate or exempt the penalties for the undertaking.

Where a trade association, in violation of this Law, organizes the undertakings in its industry for concluding a monopoly agreement, the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority shall order it to make rectification and may impose on it a fine of not more than RMB 3 million yuan. Where the circumstances are serious, the administrative organ for the registration of social organizations may revoke the registration of the trade association pursuant to the law.

Article 57 Where an undertaking, in violation of this Law, abuses its dominant market position, the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority shall order it to cease the violation, confiscate its illegal gains and, in addition, impose a fine of not less than 1 percent but not more than 10 percent of its turnover in the previous year.

Article 58 Where an undertaking, in violation of this Law, implements a concentration of undertakings that has or may have the effect of eliminating or restricting competition, the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council shall order the undertakings to cease implementing the concentration, dispose of relevant shares or assets or transfer relevant businesses within a specified time limit, or take other necessary measures to restore the situation to the state prior to the concentration, and impose on them a fine of not more than 10 percent of their turnover in the previous year. Where the implemented concentration of undertakings has no effect of eliminating or restricting competition, a fine of not more than RMB 5 million yuan shall be imposed.

Article 59 When determining the specific amount of fines prescribed in Articles 56, 57 and 58, the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority shall consider factors such as the nature, gravity and duration of the violations, as well as the extent to which the consequences of the violations have been removed.

Article 60 Where the monopolistic practice of an undertaking has caused losses to others, it shall assume civil liability pursuant to the law.

Where the monopolistic practice of an undertaking harms the public interests, the people's procuratorates at or above the level of city divided into districts may initiate civil public interest litigation in the people's courts pursuant to the law.

Article 61 Where an administrative organ or an organization authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of public administration abuses its administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition, the administrative organ at the higher level shall order it to make rectification; each of the directly responsible persons in charge and other directly responsible persons shall be given a sanction pursuant to the law. The anti-monopoly law enforcement authority may provide the administrative organ at the higher level with a recommendation to handle the said abuse pursuant to the law. The administrative organ or the organization authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of public administration shall submit a written report on the said rectification to the administrative organ at the higher level and the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority.

Where laws or administrative regulations provide otherwise in respect of the abuse of administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition by an administrative organ or an organization authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of public administration, such provisions shall prevail.

Article 62 Where, during the review or investigation conducted by the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority pursuant to the law, an entity or individual refuses to provide relevant materials or information, or provides false materials or information, or conceals, destroys or transfers evidence, or refuses or obstructs investigation in any other manner, the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority shall order the entity or individual to make rectification and impose a fine of not more than 1 percent of the turnover in the previous year on the entity, or not more than RMB 5 million yuan where there is no turnover or the turnover in the previous year is difficult to be calculated; the individual shall be fined not more than RMB 500,000 yuan.

Article 63 Where a violation of this Law involves extremely serious circumstances, has an extremely bad impact and causes extremely serious consequences, the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority under the State Council may determine the specific amount of the fine of not less than twice but not more than five times the amount of the fine stipulated in Articles 56, 57, 58 and 62 of this Law.

Article 64 Where an undertaking is subject to administrative penalties for violating this Law, such penalties shall be recorded in its credit records and made public in accordance with the relevant regulations of the state.

Article 65 Where an undertaking is dissatisfied with a decision made by the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority in accordance with Articles 34 and 35 of this Law, it may first apply for an administrative reconsideration pursuant to the law; and if it remains dissatisfied with the decision of the administrative reconsideration, it may bring an administrative litigation pursuant to the law.

An entity or individual is dissatisfied with a decision made by the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority other than a decision specified in the preceding paragraph may apply for an administrative reconsideration or bring an administrative litigation pursuant to the law.

Article 66 Where a staff member of the anti-monopoly law enforcement authority abuses his office, neglects his duty, engages in malpractices for personal gain, or divulges commercial secrets, personal privacy or personal information learned in the course of law enforcement, the staff member shall be given a sanction pursuant to the law.

Article 67 Where a violation of this Law constitutes a criminal offense, the offender shall be subject to criminal liability pursuant to the law.

Chapter VIII  Supplementary Provisions

Article 68 This Law shall not apply to the exercise of intellectual property rights by an undertaking in accordance with the laws and administrative regulations relating to intellectual property rights; this Law, however, shall apply to the abuse of intellectual property rights by an undertaking which eliminates or restricts market competition.

Article 69 This Law shall not apply to the joint or concerted conduct carried out by agricultural producers or rural economic organizations in their business activities such as production, processing, sales, transportation and storage of agricultural products.

Article 70 This Law shall enter into force as of August 1, 2008.