Fill in the following details to e-mail
To
Cc
Subject
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> <br /> Competition Appellate Tribunal <br /><br /> CCI penalty on total turnover for collusion set aside<br /><br /> - (12 Apr 2016)<br /><br /> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">A.R. Polymers and others v. Competition Commission of India and Director General (Supplies & Disposals)</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE"><strong>The Competition Appellate Tribunal <a href="http://compat.nic.in/upload/PDFs/judgement-orders-2016/TRUE%20FINAL%20ORDER%20-N13.4(proncuonded%2001.04.2016)%20A.R.%20Polymers%20vs.%20DG%20S&D%20&%20c.pdf">set aside a decision</a> of the Competition Commission of India imposing a fine on total turnover from several products of the Appellants even though collusion was alleged in the case of only one good.<BR><BR> The Appellants, “multi-product companies” engaged in diverse manufacturing activity, including rubber goods such as footwear, had quoted substantially similar prices for the manufacture of ‘Jungle Boots’ to be purchased by Indian Paramilitary Forces, State Police, Railways and other agencies. The Director General (Supplied & Disposals) referred the matter to the Competition Commission of India, which ordered an investigation. It was found that the Appellants had quoted identical or near identical prices and sufficient evidence had been procured to establish collusion between the parties. The Commission went on to levy a penalty of five per cent on total turnover, in respect of all the products manufactured by them.<BR><BR> COMPAT concluded that the CCI was not empowered to order an investigation into the “product, goods or service other those qua which allegation of anti-competitive agreement or abuse of dominant position is levelled…investigation officer is required to confine his investigation to the particular product”.</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ><strong>Relevant : Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and others <manuid>MANU/SC/0306/2009</manuid> Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa <manuid>MANU/SC/0418/1969</manuid></strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ><strong>Tags : collusion, penalty, total turnover, investigation</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr> <!--<td><strong>Source : <a target="_new" href="http://www.manupatrafast.com/">newsroom.manupatra.com</a></strong></td>--> <td align="left" valign="top"><strong>Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>