XYZ Vs Jindal Stainless Limited (Competition Commission of India)
The Competition Commission of India considered an information filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 alleging contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act by Jindal Stainless Limited (OP-1), Eternal Tsingshan Group Co. Ltd. (OP-2), PT Qing Feng Ferrochrome (OP-3), PT Indonesia Guang Ching Nickel & Stainless Steel Industry (OP-4), and PT Indonesia Ripu Nickel and Chrome Alloy (OP-5). The Informant, an Indian participant in the downstream stainless-steel market, sought confidentiality of its identity throughout the proceedings.
The Informant alleged that nickel is a critical raw material for stainless-steel production and that, following Indonesia’s ban on exports of unprocessed nickel ore, Indian manufacturers became dependent on imports of stainless-steel slabs (SS Slabs) and stainless-steel hot rolled coils (SS HRC) from Indonesia. According to the Informant, OP-3 supplied nickel-rich SS Slabs exclusively to OP-1, while OP-4 and OP-5 similarly supplied SS HRC exclusively to OP-1, amounting to exclusive dealing and refusal-to-deal arrangements prohibited under Sections 3(4)(b) and 3(4)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. The Informant further alleged that OP-1 held a dominant position in the market for wide cold rolled stainless steel (CRSS) products in India and that these arrangements denied market access to competitors in violation of Section 4(2)(c). It also challenged the Jindal Saathi programme and related Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs), alleging that procurement-linked incentives created de facto exclusivity, customer lock-in, reduced consumer choice, and foreclosed competition. The Informant sought an investigation under Section 26(1), cease-and-desist directions, monetary penalties, and divestment of OP-1’s interest in Chromeni.
