iCommercial

Suning to refute, "said commercial bribery," said no final conclusion

Zhejiang Industry and Commerce announced the ten cases of commercial bribery, ranked one of the "domestic
Home appliance chain
Giant
Suning
Appliances under the guise of "sponsorship fees" charged to the supplier of bribery "by people's attention. Suning CEO Sun Weimin said no final conclusion yet, Zhejiang industrial and commercial sector can not be established Suning commercial bribery claim.

"This matter has dragged on for years." Sun Weimin said, "We have been in court, the first instance so after playing the second instance, the High Court of Appeal upheld the finished Youxiang. Case has not finished, how can be characterized as commercial Bribery? "

According to reports, referred to Commerce and Industry Bureau of Zhejiang Suning accepting bribery case in 2002. Hangzhou Industrial and Commercial Bureau to find the facts are: from January 2002 to June 2003, Hangzhou Jacob Electronics Co., Ltd., Xiamen
Amoi
Electronics Co., Ltd. Hangzhou Branch respectively Suning Corporation
Sell
Of 4,329,166 yuan and 3,179,717 yuan electronics. Period, Suning company to "sponsor fee" and "rebate shall," "
Promotions
Fees "and" venue fee "in the name, Jacob received the cost of 138,109 yuan paid by the company, Amoi pay 79,600 yuan, a total of 217,709 yuan. Suning these costs in revenue after the certificate issued to the payer as" Zhejiang Province uniform invoice the sale of goods ", and a small amount of" service uniform invoice, Hangzhou, Zhejiang ", net
Tax
29,194.82 yuan, the actual income of the cost of 188,514.18 yuan, and entered into the company
Finance
"Other business income" subject. May 13, 2004 Hangzhou Industrial and Commercial Administration (hereinafter referred to as "BAIC") charged with Suning "sponsorship fee" and "rebate shall," "promotional fees" and "venue fee" charges on a commercial bribery on the grounds that the company made Suning confiscate the illegal gains 18.8514 million yuan, a fine of 10 yuan for administrative penalties. August 9, 2004 Suning Corporation appeal an administrative penalty, the Beijing Haidian district people's court. Court of First Instance on November 9, 2004 first instance verdict, the maintenance of the Industrial and Commercial Bureau of the administrative penalty decision. Su Ning, the company refused to accept the first instance decision, on November 22, 2004 to appeal to the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court. Suning Hangzhou Intermediate Court rejected the appeal, final decision to maintain the first instance. The Hou Suning to continue to handing out the proceedings.

"From the beginning of negotiations, to the hearing stage, to the proceedings, Suning has a positive attitude to communicate." Sun Weimin said, "but the Zhejiang industrial and commercial department failed to conduct the proceedings completed on the unilateral declaration of" Commercial Bribery "As the executive branch to do so is clearly unfair. Moreover, their conclusions are contradictory, they Suning in this matter that the main problem is related to a pay accounted for as wrong, since you believe not, then you tell me how to do it. it's actually the enterprise and between enterprises
Contract
Behavior, each firm and each firm the practice. But the amount of revenue each Suning all pay taxes according to the of. Suning cooperation with suppliers has never discriminatory terms, we are all equal. "

That this came out on Suning will have been affected? Sun Weimin said Suning as a public company, all information is transparent to the public. Su Ning, this will definitely impact. For some unwitting misleading, even repeated the baseless assertion. Suning Government departments should continue to reflect, to communicate, but can not eliminate these adverse effects. We hope that this triggered discussion among industry, conveys a positive meaning.

About the Author:
I am an expert from China Manufacturers, usually analyzes all kind of industries situation, such as short sleeve blouse , georgette skirt.