Informant (Confidential) Vs. Grasim Industries Limited. (GIL)
- Citation51/2017, 54/2017 and 56/2017 (Informant (Confidential) Vs. Grasim)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A dominant position in a relevant market may be assumed to continue where the Commission has previously found the enterprise dominant in that market and no material shows that market dynamics have changed significantly. Where the informants propose no relevant market, the Commission may adopt the market identified in an earlier decision on similar allegations. Requiring customers, as a precondition for supply or discount, to disclose production capacities, suppliers, buyers, turnover and balance sheets in a prescribed format is, prima facie, the imposition of supplementary obligations having no connection with the subject matter of the sale. Where the enterprise can impose such conditions only because of its dominance, this conduct is prima facie contravention of Section 4(2)(a)(i) and Section 4(2)(d) read with Section 4(1). Withdrawal of agreed sales terms and refusal to supply by an enterprise that is the sole supplier in the relevant market, where no alternative supply exists and imports are uneconomical, is prima facie denial or refusal to deal affecting spinners and end-users. Where such conduct also discriminates against an informant relative to similarly placed customers receiving discounts, it is prima facie contravention of Section 4(2)(a)(ii) and Section 4(2)(c) read with Section 4(1). Where the Commission forms a prima facie view that a contravention of Section 4 is disclosed, it may direct the Director General to investigate under Section 26(1). Such a direction is not a final expression of opinion on the merits, and the investigation must proceed without
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Case No. 56 of 2017
10. The Informant in this case has also raised similar allegations and stated that the OP is refusing to supply VSF to its company in which the Informant is employed. It is alleged that the OP stopped the supply of VSF to the company despite the company enjoying a credit limit of more than Rupees one crore.
11. It is also alleged that the OP is harassing its company by delaying/ denying the discount scheme benefits offered by it owing to its monopoly in the sale of viscose in the market. Further, it is also alleged that owing to certain legal disputes, the OP has been refusing to sell VSF to the company.
12. Upon considering the information, the Commission heard the Informant in Case No. 56 of 2017 on 1st November, 2017 and the Informants in Case No. 51 of 2017 and Case No. 54 of 2017 on 15th November, 2017.
13. The Commission has perused the information and other material available on record. From the facts of the case and allegations raised by the Informants, it is observed that the primary grievance of the Informants pertains to the alleged abuse of dominant position by the OP which is in violation of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
14. It is observed that the contentions of the Informants relate to the conduct of the OP in imposing discriminatory conditions on sale of VSF; monitoring the customers by collecting details of their consumption, production and sales; denying discounts to those who are not complying with its directions; and practising unfair policies with respect to discounts offered.
15. The Informants in Case Nos. 51 and 56 of 2017 have not proposed any relevant market in their respective information whereas the Informant in Case No. 54 of Case No. 51, 54 & 56 of 2017
2017 has defined the relevant market as market for sale of Viscose Staple Fibre in India. It may be noted here that vide order dated 10th November, 2016, the Commission in a previous case (Case No. 62 of 2016) with similar allegations has already held the OP as dominant in the relevant market of ‘provision for sale of Viscose Stable Fibre in India’. Considering the aforesaid order and submission of the Informant in Case No. 54 of 2017, Commission considers the above mentioned market as the relevant market in these cases also. Further, with regard to dominance of the OP, in the absence of any material pointing to the contrary, Commission is of prima facie view that the market dynamics vis-a-vis the OP have not changed to any significant extent and that the OP still holds a dominant position in the relevant market defined above.
16. Coming to the examination of the alleged abusive conduct of the OP regarding not disclosing its discount policies and providing differential treatment to different customers with respect to discounts offered to them, Commission observes that OP is offering various discounts/ incentives/ rebates, inter alia quantity discount, continuity discount, umberlla discount, comfort blend discount etc. Before giving discounts, OP compells its customers to disclose information regarding their production capacities, list of their suppliers, buyers, their turnover, and balance sheet as a pre-condition for supply of VSF. This information is to be provided by the customers in the format specified by the OP. Further it is alleged that access to this confidential data also permits the OP to monitor the downstream market of viscose yarn thereby enabling it to regulate and influence the price of VSF. The Commission observes that such a conduct amounts to imposing supplementary obligations on the sale of VSF, which by nature and according to commercial usage have no connection with the subject matter of the contract. The OP is able to impose such conditions on the VSF buyers owing to its dominance in the VSF market in India. As such, the OP appears to be prima facie violating the provisions of Section 4(2)(a)(i) and Section 4(2)(d) read with Section 4(1) of the Act. Moreover, in an Case No. 51, 54 & 56 of 2017 earlier case, similar conduct of the OP was found to be abusive by the Commission and the DG was directed to investigate the same.
17. The Informant in Case No. 54 of 2017 has alleged that the OP had arbitrarily withdrawn all sales terms (credits and discounts) agreed between the two parties and thus, ultimately refused to supply VSF to it. The Informant has submitted that against the requirement of 275 MT, it had received only 37.49 MT of VSF. For the period of February-August, 2017, it did not receive any supply of VSF from the OP. Due to this, the Informant’s production of yarn reduced substantially and it could not supply yarn to its customers. The Informant has further submitted that due to non-supply of yarn, its customers have switched over to others and thus, its business is being wiped out because of the abusive conduct of the OP. The Commission observes that OP is the sole supplier of VSF in the relevant market. Hence, such denial/refusal to deal by OP affects not only the spinning companies who buy VSF for manufacturing yarn, but, also affects the end-users at large, as there exists no other alternative supply option for VSF in the Indian market and import of VSF is also uneconomical owing to imposition of anti-dumping duties. Further, the withdrawal of sales terms and discounts would leave the product of the Informant at a price point at which no takers would be available. The Informant appears to be discriminated vis-à-vis similarly placed customers to whom discount is being provided by the OP. Therefore, the Commission is of the view that prima facie there is contravention of the provisions of Section 4 (2)(a)(ii) and Section 4(2)(c) read with Section 4(1) of the Act by OP.
18. In view of the foregoing, Commission directs the DG to cause an investigation into these cases under the provisions of Section 26(1) of the Act and file a consolidated investigation report within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. During the course of investigation, if involvement of any other party or individual is found, the DG shall investigate the conduct of such other parties also who may have indulged in the said contravention.
Case No. 51, 54 & 56 of 2017
19. The Commission makes it clear that nothing stated in this order shall tantamount to final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the DG shall conduct the investigation without being swayed in any manner whatsoever by the observations made herein.
20. The Secretary is directed to send a copy of this order to the DG, along with the information and other submissions filed by the parties.
Sd/- (Devender Kumar Sikri) Chairperson
Sd/- (Sudhir Mital) Member
Sd/- (Augustine Peter) Member
Sd/- (U. C. Nahta) Member
New Delhi Date: 16.05.2018
Case No. 51, 54 & 56 of 2017
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free