Article 26 Where the authority for enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law under the State Council decides to conduct further review, it shall, within 90 days from the date of decision, complete such review, decide whether to prohibit the undertakings from concentrating, and notify them of such decision in writing. Where a decision on prohibiting the undertakings from concentrating is made, the reasons for such decision shall be given. The undertakings shall not implement concentration during the period of review.

Under any of the following circumstances, the authority for enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law under the State Council may extend the period for review as specified in the preceding paragraph on condition that it notifies the undertakings of the extension in writing, however, the extension shall not exceed the maximum of 60 days:

(1) The undertakings agree to the extension;

(2)The documents or materials submitted by undertakings are inaccurate and therefore need further verification; or

(3) major changes have take place after the undertakings made the declaration.

Where the authority for enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law under the State Council fails to make a decision at the expiration of the time limit, the undertakings may implement concentration.

Article 27 The following factors shall be taken into consideration in the review of concentration of undertakings:

(1) the market shares of the undertakings involved in concentration in a relevant market and their power of control over the market;

(2) the degree of concentration in relevant market;

(3) the impact of their concentration on assess to the market and technological advance;

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

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

(6) other factors which the authority for enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law under the State Council deems to need consideration in terms of its impact on market competition.

Article 28 If the concentration of undertakings leads, or may lead, to elimination or restriction of competition, the authority for enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law under the State Council shall make a decision to prohibit their concentration. However, if the undertakings concerned can prove that the advantages of such concentration to competition obviously outweigh the disadvantages, or that the concentration is in the public interest, the authority for enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law under the State Council may decide not to prohibit their concentration.

Article 29 Where the authority for enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law under the State Council does not prohibit the concentration of undertakings, it may decide to impose additional, restrictive conditions for lessening the negative impact exerted by such concentration on competition.

Article 30 The authority for enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law under the State Council shall, in a timely manner, publish its decisions on prohibition against the concentration of undertakings or its decisions on imposing additional restrictive conditions on the implementation of such concentration.

Article 31 Where a foreign investor participates in the concentration of undertakings by merging and acquiring a domestic enterprise or by any other means, which involves national security, the matter shall be subject to review on national security as is required by the relevant State regulations, in addition to the review on the concentration of undertakings in accordance with the provisions of this Law.

Chapter V Abuse of Administrative Power to Eliminate or Restrict Competition

Article 32 Administrative departments and other organizations authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of administering public affairs may not abuse their administrative power to require, or require in disguised form, units or individuals to deal in, purchase or use only the commodities supplied by the undertakings designated by them.

Article 33 Administrative departments and other organizations authorized by laws or regulations to perform the function of administering public affairs may not abuse their administrative power to impede the free flow of commodities between different regions by any of the following means:

(1) setting discriminatory charging items, implementing discriminatory charge rates, or fixing discriminatory prices for non-local commodities;

(2) imposing technical specifications or test standards on non-local commodities, which are different from those on local commodities of similar types, or taking discriminatory technical measures, such as repeated test and repeated certification, against non-local commodities, for the purpose of restricting the access of non-local commodities to the local market;

(3) adopting a special practice of administrative licensing for non-local commodities, for the purpose of restricting the access of non-local commodities to the local market;

(4) erecting barriers or adopting other means to prevent non-local commodities from coming in or local commodities from going out; or

(5) other means designed to impede the free flow of commodities between regions.