Pranav Gupta Vs Federation of Publishers and Booksellers Association in India (Competition Commission of India)
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has found the Federation of Publishers’ and Booksellers’ Association in India (FPBAI) and three of its key office-bearers guilty of engaging in anti-competitive practices. In its order against a complaint filed by Pranav Gupta, the commission ruled that the association violated the Competition Act, 2002, by fixing currency conversion rates, stipulating uniform commercial terms, and issuing advisories that stifled competition. Consequently, the CCI imposed monetary penalties on the FPBAI and its leadership and issued a series of directives to ensure future compliance.
The case examined four primary allegations against the FPBAI and its sub-committee, the Good Offices Committee (GOC).
Issue 1: Fixing of Foreign Exchange Rates
The investigation focused on the GOC’s long-standing practice of publishing monthly currency conversion rates for imported books and journals. These rates were consistently marked up over the prevailing bank rates, creating a system of dual pricing. The CCI found that while importer-booksellers based primarily in Delhi purchased books from foreign publishers at actual bank rates, they sold them to other Indian booksellers, libraries, and institutions at the inflated GOC rates.
The FPBAI contended that these rates were merely “suggestive” and not mandatory. However, the CCI found substantial evidence to the contrary. Testimonies from various stakeholders, including regional association members, revealed that booksellers were often compelled to adhere to the GOC rates, leading to financial losses for those who were not direct importers. The commission noted that GOC circulars only began describing the rates as “suggestive” after regulatory scrutiny began, suggesting the disclaimer was an afterthought. Evidence also indicated that non-compliance could lead to the cancellation of membership, implying a coercive mechanism. The CCI concluded that this practice amounted to price fixation, a direct contravention of Section 3(3)(a) of the Competition Act, benefiting a small group of importers at the expense of the wider market.
