MOFCOM just issued its first order for 2021: Rules on Counteracting Unjustified Extra-territorial Application of Foreign Legislation and Other Measures. Key message:
We are going to prohibit firms from complying with foreign laws prohibiting transactions with Chinese firms.
Key provisions: 1. The legislative basis is National Security Law; 2. Chinese firms and individuals are required to report foreign sanctions; 3. MOFCOM may issue injunctions prohibiting firms and individuals from recognizing, enforcing and complying with foreign sanctions.
4. Chinese firms suffering loss from another party's compliance with foreign sanctions can sue for damages in Chinese courts.
5. China could provide support to Chinese firms and individuals for losses arising from complying with Chinese junctions against complying with foreign sanctions.
6. China could take necessary countermeasures.
The new rules shall be read together with: 1. US measures banning Wechat, TikTok, Huawei, Alipay etc; 2. China's recent press releases on such measures; 3. China's recent attempt to insert denial of benefits provisions in the #CAI with the EU, as reported by @fbermingham;
Thanks @loyaladvisor for this. This would be the most detailed info on the #CAI before the text is out. Here are a few gems I found in the internet sector:
1. Cloud services "will now be open to EU investors subject to a 50% equity cap". Good for EU but they are late to the Party, as Amazon AMS has been in China since 6 years ago;
2. The ‘technology neutrality' clause, which ensures that equity caps imposed for telecom VAS won't be applied to other online services such as financial, logistics, medical etc. AFAIK these have never been regarded as VAS to start with and never been subject to VAS equity caps.
The decision is hardly surprising, but there are two interesting points in the panel report: 1. Whether the Phase 1 deal constitutes a mutually agreed solution; 2. whether the US tariffs could be justified under the public morals exception.
The first one was easy, while the second one is more tricky, as the US measures were allegedly taken against IP theft, misappropriation and unfair competition by China. The Panel ruled against the US, not because the US couldn't do so, but due to the lack of nexus and necessity.
I'm most amused by the argument by China that the criminalization of a conduct under domestic law doesn't really provide sufficient justification for invoking public morals exception. I wonder if its lawyers ever realized that this argu could be used against China in another case