Guest Post By Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co (New Delhi, India)

Below is an excerpt from a monthly newsletter published by the Competition Law team of the New Delhi, India law firm of Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. (The firm has kindly given me permission to share this excerpt.) The full newsletter covers developments in Vertical Agreements, Abuse of Dominance and Mergers.

*****************************************************************************************

Indian Competition Law Roundup: August, 2018

insights@amsshardul.com.

In this Roundup, we highlight the main developments in Indian competition law in August 2018.

Horizontal Agreements

Dry Cell Batteries

Following a leniency application filed by Panasonic Corporation, Japan, the CCI found that Panasonic Energy India (Panasonic India) and Geep Industries (Geep) participated in a cartel in the sale of dry cell batteries from October 2010 to April 2016.[1] This cartel was ancillary to a cartel between Panasonic India, Eveready Industriesand Indo National, which was the subject of an earlier order.[2]

The case involved the sale of batteries by Panasonic India to Geep pursuant to a product supply agreement. The agreement provided that Geep would not take any steps detrimental to Panasonic India’s interests and that it would maintain prices at agreed levels. Through e-mail correspondence between the parties, the CCI also found that there was a price monitoring system and exchanges of commercially sensitive pricing information.

The CCI imposed a penalty on Panasonic India of 1.5 times its profit for each year of the cartel, amounting to INR 74 crores (USD 10.4 million approximately), and imposed a maximum penalty on two of its officials of 10% of their average income for the last three financial years. However, Panasonic India and its officials benefited from a 100% reduction in penalty as they had fulfilled the conditions for leniency. Given Geep’s small size and lack of bargaining power, the CCI imposed a penalty of only 4% of its turnover for each year of the cartel, amounting to INR 9.6 crores (USD 1.35 million approximately). However, it imposed a 10% penalty on three of its officials.

[1] Suo Moto Case No. 2 of 2017 In Re: Anti-competitive conduct in the Dry-Cell Batteries Market in India (30 August 2018).

[2] Suo Moto Case No. 2 of 2016 In Re: Cartelisation in the Zinc Carbon Dry-Cell Batteries Market in India (19 April 2018).

Disclaimer

This is intended for general information purposes only. It is not a substitute for legal advice and is not the final opinion of the Firm. Readers should consult lawyers at the Firm for any specific legal or factual questions.