按公平交易法所涉及之專業問題，不論行為態樣及產業特性，均較其他法律為多且複雜，是以我國公平交易法設置有專業人員組織之公平交易委員會執行該法，但在司法審查該會處分之案件時，我國現制並無特別規定，與審查一般行政處分相同，致公平交易委員會所認定之事實有時遭法院推翻，就司法對設會處分在請求撤銷該處分之訴訟，審查該處分時，是否應以由專業人員所組成該委員會就該事實認定之判斷為據，係值得研究之問題，就該問題之處理，美、日法制有特別規定，以謀求解決此問題，本文認我國現行制度司法審查公平交易委員會之處分深入該會對相關證據證明力之判斷，與美、日前揭法制不同，不符公平交易法立法時設置公平交易委員會之立法本旨及可能造成案件在司法程序處理時之拖延。基於公平交易委員會之設置本旨及使司法審查單純化，公平交易法應參考日、美法制在立法上採行「實質證據法則」之規定，使公平交易委員就涉及專業性之違法行為在處分程序認定之事實有確定力，但在配套拖措上應建立以委員會處分程序為認定事實核心之程序，不許當事人在司法審查程序中提出新攻防方法，並使公平交易委員會處分程序審判化，將使我國司法審查公平交易委員會處分時，更加流暢。

The scope of the judicial review of decisions made by the Fair Trade Commission are not subject to any limitations in Taiwan, R.O.C.. The scope of the judicial review includes issues of fact and law. The Fair Trade Commission in Taiwan consists of legal and economic specialists and is more capable of judging an issue of fact than the courts. This paper discusses the problems regarding the scope of the judicial review of decisions made by the Fair Trade Commission. First of all, this paper introduces the general rules regarding the scope of the judicial review of administrative actions. The scope of judicial review includes both issues of fact and law. Secondly, this paper analyzes the legal systems concerned with the scope of the judicial review of decisions made by the respective Fair Trade Commissions of the U.S.A. and Japan. In the U.S.A. and Japan, the scope of the judicial review is limited by the “substantial evidence rule”. The findings of the Commission with regard to the facts, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive. This paper then comments on the defects in the legal system in relation to the scope of the judicial review of decisions made by the Fair Trade Commission in Taiwan. This paper concludes by presenting the prerequisites for adopting the substantial evidence rule.