Case Law Details
Alleged cartelisation for increasing pulse prices in India Vs Viterra India Private Limited (Competition Commission of India)
On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the findings of the DG are, inter alia, based on analysis of data of domestic production, imports, exports, domestic consumption, surplus/deficit, monthly average wholesale and retail prices, SMS/e-mail communications, etc. In this regard, the Commission observes that the investigation has not brought out any price parallelism amongst the OPs. Investigation has also not examined the role of global prices in determining domestic prices, the nuances of the industry and market dynamics. The DG has relied mainly on the internal communication recovered by income tax authorities but has not analysed the nature of trade carried out by importers and whether such information regarding stock positions is available to the public and to all competitors and buyers. Pertinently, the DG itself noted in the investigation report that during investigation “no evidence was unearthed which indicate that the OPs were jointly hoarding the stocks of pulses”.
Furthermore, it is seen in the replies of the Parties that there also exists a buyer–seller relationship between various OPs and, in such a scenario, any interaction or exchange of any information amongst them need to be analysed keeping in mind multi-faceted relation amongst the various OPs. Against this backdrop, sporadic communications between OPs exchanging information, which is already available in public domain, cannot be construed as collusion between OPs.
It also cannot be ignored that OPs, who are traders of pulses, deal with other traders and dal millers through brokers/agents/intermediaries who may be common, and in these circumstances, dealing through common brokers and agents can result in transparency and organic dissemination of information in the market.
On careful perusal of the Investigation Report and considering the response of the OPs, the Commission is of the considered opinion that there is not sufficient evidence on record to establish cartelisation or action in concert. Resultantly, the Commission is of the opinion that no case of contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act is made out against OPs. As such, the matter is directed to be closed forthwith.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
