GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An Information was received by the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") that the manufacturers of Man Made Fibres (for short "MMF") i.e. Polyester Staple Fibre (PSF), Acrylic Staple Fibre (ASF), Viscose Staple Fibre (VSF) & Nylon Staple Fibre (NSF) had imposed several restrictions on Indian Textile Industry, which are their customers for purchase of MMF, and such restrictions constitute anti-competitive actions. The Commission, vide order dated 22.6.2011, on consideration of the information submitted by the informant, formed a prima facie opinion that there existed a case to direct the Director General to cause an investigation into the matter. The Director General was accordingly instructed to conduct an investigation into the matter. The allegations against MMF manufacturers, who were alleged to be contravening the provisions of Section 3(3)(a)(b)(c) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") in a nutshell were as follows: (a) Price fixation of MMF products in the domestic markets; (b) The domestic manufacturer of MMF basing their price on import landed cost; (c) Selling cheaper in overseas market than domestic market; (d) Allocation of customers for specific suppliers and other suppliers not supplying to these customers/regions. (e) Consumer based division on the basis of region, quantity, quality and supplier preference. (f) Cutting down production jointly to avoid competition. (g) Due to the imposition of ADD the prices becoming higher in the domestic market. (h) Export incentives provided to the exporters of MMF manufacturers giving them the extra benefit.

(2.) During the course of investigation by the Director General, the informant alleged that Grasim Industries Limited (GIL), which is the petitioner before this Court and is the only manufacturer of Viscose Staple Fibre (VSF) in the country on account of its dominant position in the market of VSF, was indulging into various anti-competitive practices. The anti-competitive practices attributed to GIL were as follows:

(3.) The Director General, therefore, decided to investigate on the following issues as well: