National

Regional

Taiwan, HK, Macao

Special Coverage

Focus

Society

Profiles

Anti-monopoly law might apply in Rio, BHP deal

(Xinhua)
Updated: 2009-06-15 22:59

BEIJING - China's Ministry of Commerce (MOC) said Monday that if the revenue of the joint venture of Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton reached "a certain amount," China's anti-monopoly law would apply.

Rio Tinto scrapped a proposed 19.5-billion-US-dollar investment by Aluminum Corp. of China, or Chinalco, on June 5, and turned to rival BHP Billiton, which would pay Rio Tinto US$5.8 billion to set up a joint venture to run the iron ore resources of both companies in west Australia.

Related readings:  Sino-Australian ties OK despite Rio scrap  Rio Tinto accused of carbon deception  China steel association opposes Rio-BHP iron ore JV  Rio Tinto scraps marriage with Chinalco Rio Tinto, BHP deal 'monopolistic', industry warns

"As the world's second- and third-largest iron ore suppliers, exports of the two mining giants comprise 80 percent of exports from Australia, or 36 percent of the world's total," MOC spokesman Yao Jian told reporters.

"Their tie-up will certainly affect global supply. It is reasonable that China, the world's biggest iron ore importer, is concerned about it," he said. "If their revenue reaches certain amount, Chinese anti-monopoly law will apply."

China's anti-monopoly law requires a company to get government approval before consolidation if its global revenue exceeds 10 billion yuan (US$1.47 billion) and its revenue in China exceeds 2 billion yuan.

An anti-monopoly review is also necessary if two or more parties in the company had more than 400 million yuan of revenue in China in the previous fiscal year.

According to the London-based Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau, the two mining giants exported 270 million tonnes of iron ore in 2008, of which 70 percent went to China. That comprised half of China's imports.

In the year ended 30 June, BHP Billiton's revenue in China was US$11.7 billion, while that for Rio Tinto was US$10.8 billion, according to the companies' websites.

Yao said the ministry had not received an application from either firm.

It was unclear what actions China would take if the case was determined to be covered by the Chinese anti-monopoly law.