Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Commission Companies Law - 2013 (4) TMI Commission This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 441 - COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIAUnfair trade practice - Application is filed u/s 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 alleging inter-alia contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. – Informant association alleged that OP 1, the largest mineral (iron ore) producer in India, abused its dominant position and colluded with the other opposite parties this affected competition in the iron ore production market in India. Held that – It is necessary to consider as to what will be the relevant market in this case. Having regard to these facts and circumstances, the Commission is of the view that the relevant market in this case would be the market of 'iron ore production/supply in India' and OP 1 (which holds only 16% for the year 2011-12) is not a dominant player in this market. The Commission considered the facts and data placed on record by both sides and is of the view that the relevant market definition proposed by the informant cannot be accepted. The informant has inflated the market share of OP 1 by excluding captive iron ore production, low grade iron ore having less than 60% Fe content and exports from the relevant market definition. This indicates that the relevant market was much broader than the one proposed by the informant. However the relevance of determining relevant market and dominance of an enterprise is only there in free markets. Where mining activities was being done as per the orders of the Supreme Court and pricing was looked after by another Committee, determination of relevant market may not be appropriate. The Commission is not convinced that there existed a deliberate reduction in production in view of the Supreme Court orders. Prima facie there seemed to be no collusion between OP 1 and other private parties and no competitive issue was there that required intervention of the Commission. There is no case either under section 3 or under section 4 of the Act. The case deserves to be closed under section 26 (2) of the Act and is accordingly hereby closed.
|