Kids, Don't Try This At Home In Washington: China Enacts Draconian Recall Law

Bertel Schmitt
by Bertel Schmitt

Usually, China gets accused of copying from America. This time, U.S. lawmakers will itch to copy a new Chinese law that comes in effect on January 1. Stealing this idea could help solve the current cash flow problems in Washington, and could provide a happy ending to the DC fiscal cliff-hanger. It also could provide an elegant way to eliminate disagreeable competitors. Car companies would not like it at all.

China’s new Administrative Regulations on the Recall of Defective Automobile Products, Number 626, were signed into law on October 22, 2012 by China’s outgoing premier Wen Jiabao. Previous rules provided for slaps on the wrists in the amount of $5,000 max if an automaker refused to recall defective vehicles. The new law raises the fine to $32,000, still bupkis compared to the $16.4 million an ignored recall could cost stateside. But wait, there is more, much more:

Egregious acts, such as failure to stop producing, selling, or importing defective automobile products; concealing defect information; and failure to implement a mandated recall can become extremely costly. In that case, says Article 24, China’s Product Quality Supervision Department shall impose a fine of “more than 2% but less than 10%” the value of the affected goods.

Let’s run the numbers: The gas pedal, floor mat, and steering rod affairs did cost Toyota $16.4 million each, for a total of $50 million (including $800,000 for legal costs…). According to published information, the three recalls affected 8.7 million units. Using an average price of $30,000 per unit, the matter would have cost … $26.1 billion under the new Chinese law.

Oooops.

In 2010, lawmakers tried to raise the cap from $16.4 million to $300 million. That law never made it, but if enacted would have netted the Treasury less than a billion for the aforementioned affairs, still cheap compared what the fine in allegedly low-cost China could be.

There is another provision in the Chinese law that might be even more enticing to certain lawmakers: “In serious cases, the licensing organ may revoke the relevant permit of the concerned party.” Meaning: The company can be fined and kicked out of the country.

“Illegal gains shall be confiscated.”

Interested parties can find the law (in Chinese) here.

Bertel Schmitt
Bertel Schmitt

Bertel Schmitt comes back to journalism after taking a 35 year break in advertising and marketing. He ran and owned advertising agencies in Duesseldorf, Germany, and New York City. Volkswagen A.G. was Bertel's most important corporate account. Schmitt's advertising and marketing career touched many corners of the industry with a special focus on automotive products and services. Since 2004, he lives in Japan and China with his wife <a href="http://www.tomokoandbertel.com"> Tomoko </a>. Bertel Schmitt is a founding board member of the <a href="http://www.offshoresuperseries.com"> Offshore Super Series </a>, an American offshore powerboat racing organization. He is co-owner of the racing team Typhoon.

More by Bertel Schmitt

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 22 comments
  • Daveainchina Daveainchina on Dec 07, 2012

    Does anyone else see this as a legal way for the Chinese government to seize the assets of any company they choose? "There is another provision in the Chinese law that might be even more enticing to certain lawmakers: “In serious cases, the licensing organ may revoke the relevant permit of the concerned party.” Meaning: The company can be fined and kicked out of the country. “Illegal gains shall be confiscated.”" That part really scares me, with the highly political court in China when it comes to business, I see this as an opening of the door so that if in the future the government doesn't like a country/company they can just take everything because of the companies "crimes"

    • Pch101 Pch101 on Dec 07, 2012

      "Does anyone else see this as a legal way for the Chinese government to seize the assets of any company they choose?" Of course, that's what it is. They want the power to seize assets and nationalize the industry as their hearts desire.

  • Corntrollio Corntrollio on Dec 07, 2012

    China has all kinds of draconian laws like this. It's why foreign companies hire lawyers to use complicated structures to avoid certain liabilities in China. Not much to see here, but companies that opened factories in China should have known what they were getting into.

  • Slavuta Motor Trend"Although the interior appears more upscale, sit in it a while and you notice the grainy plastics and conventional design. The doors sound tinny, the small strip of buttons in the center stack flexes, and the rear seats are on the firm side (but we dig the ability to recline). Most frustrating were the repeated Apple CarPlay glitches that seemed to slow down the apps running through it."
  • Brandon I would vote for my 23 Escape ST-Line with the 2.0L turbo and a normal 8 speed transmission instead of CVT. 250 HP, I average 28 MPG and get much higher on trips and get a nice 13" sync4 touchscreen. It leaves these 2 in my dust literally
  • JLGOLDEN When this and Hornet were revealed, I expected BOTH to quickly become best-sellers for their brands. They look great, and seem like interesting and fun alternatives in a crowded market. Alas, ambitious pricing is a bridge too far...
  • Zerofoo Modifications are funny things. I like the smoked side marker look - however having seen too many cars with butchered wire harnesses, I don't buy cars with ANY modifications. Pro-tip - put the car back to stock before you try and sell it.
  • JLGOLDEN I disagree with the author's comment on the current Murano's "annoying CVT". Murano's CVT does not fake shifts like some CVTs attempt, therefore does not cause shift shock or driveline harshness while fumbling between set ratios. Murano's CVT feels genuinely smooth and lets the (great-sounding V6) engine sing and zing along pleasantly.
Next