此前据路透社报道，印度竞争委员会(CCI)开展的反垄断调查发现，亚马逊和Flipkart违反了当地的竞争法，原因是他们优待特定卖家，优先展示某些商品，大幅打折销售产品，损害了其他公司的利益。监管报告显示，三星、小米和其他智能手机公司勾结亚马逊、沃尔玛旗下Flipkart，在这些电子商务公司的印度网站上排他性销售产品，违反了反垄断法。这次反垄断调查开始于2021年今年8月份，该委员今年提交了一份标注日期为今年8月9日的反垄断调查报告，批露的内容中，CCI在关于亚马逊的1027页报告中还提到，三星、小米、摩托罗拉、Realme和一加这五家公司的印度子公司，“与亚马逊及其附属公司勾结，在该平台上排他性发布手机”，违反了竞争法。在关于Flipkart的1696页报告中，印度竞争委员会表示，三星、小米、摩托罗拉、vivo、联想以及Realme的印度子公司也实施了类似行为。委员会称这种反竞争行为不仅通过限制这些手机在特定平台的供应来扭曲市场，还使其他卖家处于不利地位。而长期以来，由于供给大型手机连锁店的利润分成高达20%~25%，供给独立手机零售店的利润分成从15%~20%，印度手机厂商都不愿意在线下先发布新机型损失过多利润，因此印度智能手机零售商一直抱怨无法像线上平台那样提供新机型，导致顾客绕过实体店购买，线下手机零售商销量难以增长，只能充当成熟机型库存管理的市场作用。而在之前的7月份，印度反垄断机构也提交了一份关于苹果的调查报告，指出苹果可能滥用了其在iOS应用商店市场的主导地位，印度可以依据苹果在印度的销售和生产数据对苹果进行重罚。不过随后印度罕见地撤回了这份份关于苹果公司的反垄断报告，原因是苹果同样投诉报告披露了公司的商业机密。小米集团这次在提交给印度竞争委员会的申请中也表示，关于Flipkart的调查报告包含了小米的敏感商业数据，这些数据在与案件相关方分享时本应该被涂黑。小米对Flipkart报告的一个担忧是，报告中包含了按手机型号分类的销售数据，这属于敏感信息。2020年以来，中印贸易环境变差，印度屡次以“涉嫌洗钱”、“逃税”等理由对小米、OPPO、vivo和华为等中企提出指控或发起审查。不过经过这几年的困难经营，中国手机品牌依旧在印度继续站稳脚跟。这其中中国手机品牌的定价更具有竞争力，是印度用户仍然选择中国手机品牌的原因。另外在多年的政府扶持，以及获得了印度中资手机制造企业的控制权与经营权后，印度本土代工企业也开始在生产成本上有所改善，印度企业代工的中国品牌手机仍然具有成本优势。事实上，由于在芯片、显示屏、摄像头和其它核心电子元器件与模组上，印度手机产业对中国供应链依赖仍然很强，特别是非苹果、三星产业链体系，基本上属于中国制式规格的产品，因此印度不管是由中资企业自己生产，还是印度代工企业代工组装，也只是更换了一个作业场地，并没有对整个供应价值链产生再分配。经过多年的扶持，印度的电子产业规模确实越来越大，印度政府、资本也极力争取美国的半导体友岸政策，并获得了支持。同时近期来，一些避免地区冲突造成能源紧张与物流中断危机欧洲半导体企业，以及需要友岸半导体供应链安全的美国半导体企业，都开始选择投资印度，利用印度的中产以上人力资源，为其半导体产能制造业提供服务。而印度庞大的人口基数，以及知识技术平权后大量涌现的智力人才，也需要向上跨越阶层的机会，全球半导体产业投资印度，也符合这部分主动掌握知识人群的利益。这部分人群也是输出印度认知的主要群体，吸收这些人才就业，并让这些人为国际资本发出声音，也有利于这些国际资本在印度的投资便利性与安全性。 Xiaomi asked India to withdraw its anti-monopoly investigation report, and the influence of international capital is getting stronger and strongerEditor:LucienIndia sources said Xiaomi Group has asked India's antitrust authority to withdraw its report on the grounds that it contains the company's trade secrets. The India Competition Commission (CCI) has not made the investigation report public, but has shared it with the parties involved in the case. If the India Competition Commission withdrew the report, this required the relevant party to return the report and then further review the report to cut its content. Previously, according to Reuters, an antitrust investigation conducted by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) found that Amazon and Flipkart violated local competition laws by giving preferential treatment to certain sellers, giving priority to certain products, and selling products at significant discounts, harming the interests of other companies. Regulatory reports show that Samsung, Xiaomi and other smartphone companies colluded with Amazon and Walmart's Flipkart to exclusively sell products on the e-commerce companies' India websites, in violation of antitrust laws.The anti-monopoly investigation began in August 2021, and the commissioner submitted an anti-monopoly investigation report dated August 9 this yearCCI's 1,027-page report on Amazon also mentioned that the India subsidiaries of five companies, Samsung, Xiaomi, Motorola, Realme and OnePlus, "colluded with Amazon and its affiliates to release phones exclusively on the platform," in violation of competition law. In its 1,696-page report on Flipkart, the Competition Commission of India said Samsung, Xiaomi, Motorola, vivo, Lenovo and Realme's India subsidiaries had committed similar acts.The commission said the anti-competitive practices not only distorted the market by restricting the availability of these phones on specific platforms, but also put other sellers at a disadvantage. For a long time, due to the profit share of supply to large mobile phone chain stores as high as 20% ~ 25%, and the profit share of independent mobile phone retail stores from 15% ~ 20%, India mobile phone manufacturers are unwilling to release new models offline first to lose too much profit, so India smartphone retailers have been complaining that they cannot provide new models like online platforms, resulting in customers bypassing physical stores to buy, offline mobile phone retailers sales are difficult to grow, It can only be used as a market role for inventory management of mature models.In July, India's antitrust authority also submitted an investigation report on Apple, pointing out that Apple may have abused its dominant position in the iOS app store market, and India could impose heavy fines on Apple based on Apple's sales and production data in India. However, India subsequently withdrew the antitrust report on Apple in a rare move because Apple also complained that the report disclosed the company's trade secrets.Xiaomi also said in its application to the Competition Commission of India that the investigation report on Flipkart contained sensitive business data of Xiaomi that should have been blacked out when shared with parties involved in the case. One of Xiaomi's concerns about the Flipkart report is that it includes sales data by phone model, which is sensitive information.Since 2020, the trade environment between China and India has deteriorated, and India has repeatedly filed charges or initiated reviews against Chinese companies such as Xiaomi, OPPO, vivo and Huawei on the grounds of "suspected money laundering" and "tax evasion". However, after several years of difficult operation, Chinese mobile phone brands still continue to gain a foothold in India.Among them, the pricing of Chinese mobile phone brands is more competitive, which is the reason why India users still choose Chinese mobile phone brands. In addition, after years of government support and the control and operation rights of Chinese-funded mobile phone manufacturing enterprises in India, local foundry enterprises in India have also begun to improve their production costs, and Chinese brand mobile phones manufactured by India enterprises still have cost advantages.In fact, because the India mobile phone industry is still very dependent on China's supply chain in chips, displays, cameras and other core electronic components and modules, especially the non-Apple and Samsung industrial chain systems, which basically belong to the products of Chinese standard specifications, so whether India is produced by Chinese-funded enterprises or assembled by India foundry enterprises, it only replaces a work site and does not redistribute the entire supply value chain.After years of support, India's electronics industry is indeed getting bigger and bigger, and the India government and capital have also tried hard to win the semiconductor friendly shore policy of United States and won support.At the same time, recently, some European semiconductor companies to avoid the crisis of energy shortage and logistics disruption caused by regional conflicts, as well as United States semiconductor companies that need the security of the friendly semiconductor supply chain, have begun to choose to invest in India and use India's middle-class and above human resources to provide services for their semiconductor capacity manufacturing industry.India's huge population base, as well as a large number of intellectual talents emerging after the equal rights of knowledge and technology, also need the opportunity to cross the class, the global semiconductor industry investment in India, is also in line with the interests of this part of the active knowledge group. This group of people is also the main group that exports India's cognition, absorbing these talents for employment, and allowing these people to speak for international capital, which is also conducive to the convenience and security of these international capital's investment in India.
