Case Information

Plaintiff: Cement Association of [Redacted] Province (hereinafter referred to as the "[Redacted] Cement Association")
Defendant: Administration for Market Regulation of [Redacted] Province (hereinafter referred to as the"[Redacted] Provincial Administration for Market Regulation")
Defendant: State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR)

Case Brief

The [Redacted] Cement Association is a legally established industry association primarily responsible for providing guidance and coordinating the cement industry. In May 2019, the [Redacted] Provincial Administration for Market Regulation received a whistleblower report alleging that the [Redacted] Cement Association had organized industry enterprises to jointly raise prices, constituting a suspected violation of the Anti-Monopoly Law. Following a lawful investigation, the [Redacted] Provincial Administration for Market Regulation issued an administrative penalty decision in June 2022. It determined that the [Redacted] Cement Association had organized and promoted 13 cement enterprises in a certain region of [Redacted] Province to repeatedly enter into horizontal monopoly agreements to uniformly increase cement product prices, and had coordinated the participating enterprises in implementing these agreements. Consequently, the administration ordered the association to immediately cease the illegal activities and imposed a fine of RMB 500,000. Dissatisfied with the decision, the [Redacted] Cement Association filed an application for administrative reconsideration with the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR), which subsequently issued a reconsideration decision upholding the original penalty decision. The cement association then filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, seeking revocation of both the administrative penalty decision and the administrative reconsideration decision. Upon hearing the case, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the evidence of record was sufficient to prove that the [Redacted] Cement Association had engaged in organizing business operators in the industry to reach and implement horizontal monopoly agreements. It further found that the challenged administrative penalty decision and administrative reconsideration decision were supported by clear facts, correct in the application of law, and lawful in procedure. Accordingly, the court ruled to dismiss the association's claims. The [Redacted] Cement Association filed an appeal, but the Supreme People's Court dismissed it and upheld the original judgment.

Summary of Judgment

Where an industry association provides a communication platform to facilitate collusion among business operators, by means such as establishing WeChat groups, convening industry meetings, or organizing social gatherings, and coordinates, induces, or promotes such business operators in reaching and implementing monopolistic agreements, such conduct constitutes the organization by an industry association of business operators in the industry to engage in monopolistic activities, which is prohibited by the Anti-Monopoly Law.

Typical Significance

As the first administrative anti-monopoly case involving an industry association, this series of cases addresses the practical needs of anti-monopoly governance in China, clearly providing feasible and referable guidance for industry associations to perform their duties in accordance with the law, for anti-monopoly enforcement authorities to achieve precise enforcement, and for judicial organs to render impartial judgments. Furthermore, it highlights the judiciary's responsibility and commitment to maintaining a fair competition order and to serving and safeguarding the development of a unified national market.

(Case Source: 2025 Annual Cases from Official WeChat account of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court)