ISLAMABAD
In order to promote healthy business competition in the country, the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) has taken a number of actions against prohibited agreements and cartels during the year 2016, a top official of the commission said.
Typical cartel behaviour included price fixing, output restrictions, market allocation and bid rigging (submission of collusive tenders).
Giving a break-up, CCP Director General, Shaista Bano told APP that CCP took action against alleged price fixing and prohibited agreement from Reliance Paints Pakistan with its dealers.
It was revealed that Reliance Paints fixed the retail price at which its dealers may sell its product and penalised them in the case of noncompliance.
The CCP enquiry concluded that by requiring its dealers not to sell below a fixed price was anticompetitive and harmed the consumer as no discounts could be offered to consumers.
A show cause notice was issued to Reliance Paints and the particular case is currently under adjudication in front of the commission.
In the matter of alleged infringement of Section 4 of the Competition Act 2010 by Pharma Bureau and its member undertakings, the commission took suo moto notice and conducted an inquiry against Pharma Bureau and its members for prima facie unreasonably increasing the prices of various medicines through collusive practices.
The enquiry report concluded that the Pharma Bureau and its members appear to have been involved in sharing of strategic and commercially sensitive information, providing updates and overview of prices, cost, profits, demand, and the industry as a whole.
The report further stated that this information was used to deliberate upon and prepare recommendations, agreements and decisions on the increase in prices of various pharmaceutical products by the companies through the platform of Pharma Bureau.
A show cause notice was issued to the Pharma Bureau and the case is currently under adjudication before the commission.
The commission also took action against All Pakistan Newspapers Society for alleged cartelization, and it was found that certain clauses in APNS’ Rules and Regulations Governing Conduct of Advertising Agencies appeared to be anticompetitive in terms of Section 4 of the Act.
