Latest news with #CompetitionOrdinance
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business
- Business Recorder
CAT upholds CCP decision against PSM
ISLAMABAD: The Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT) has upheld the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) decision against Pakistan Steel Mills (PSM), affirming its ruling that the state-owned enterprise had abused its dominant position in the sale of low carbon steel billets. The CCP had imposed a penalty of Rs25 million for PSM's anti-competitive and discriminatory conduct. While acknowledging the violation, the Tribunal partially allowed PSM's appeal and reduced the penalty to Rs5 million, citing the limited duration of non-compliance. The CCP took suo motu notice in 2009 following media reports and a complaint by M/s Frontier Foundry (Pvt.) Ltd., which alleged preferential treatment by PSM towards a particular buyer, Abbas Group, at the expense of other market participants. CCP's investigation revealed that PSM withheld supply of key steel products between November 2008 and January 2009 without any objective justification, thereby violating Section 3 of the Competition Ordinance, 2007. The Tribunal observed that PSM failed to inform all buyers of product availability, enabling exclusive access for a single group and causing harm to other market players. Such conduct, the Tribunal noted, constituted abuse of dominance under Section 3(2)(g) and (h) of the Ordinance. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Business
- Express Tribune
Tribunal reduces penalty on steel mill
To resolve the issue, the company even offered to transfer 15% (126 million) shares of the steel mill to the government without any payment in exchange for gas supply. photo: file Listen to article The Competition Appellate Tribunal has upheld the Competition Commission of Pakistan's (CCP) decision against Pakistan Steel Mills (PSM), affirming its ruling that the state-owned enterprise abused its dominant position in the sale of low-carbon steel billets. The CCP had imposed a penalty of Rs25 million for PSM's anti-competitive and discriminatory conduct. While acknowledging the violation, the tribunal partially allowed PSM's appeal and reduced the penalty to Rs5 million, citing the limited duration of non-compliance. The CCP took suo motu notice in 2009 following media reports and a complaint from Frontier Foundry that alleged preferential treatment by PSM towards a particular buyer, Abbas Group, at the expense of other market participants. The CCP investigation revealed that PSM withheld supply of key steel products between November 2008 and January 2009 without any objective justification, violating Section 3 of the Competition Ordinance.
Business Recorder
07-05-2025
- Business
- Business Recorder
Penalty imposed by CCP: CAT reserves verdict in a case filed by ICAP
ISLAMABAD: The Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT) has reserved its verdict in a case filed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan (ICAP) against a penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) over alleged price-fixing. The case dates back to 2008, when CCP initiated suo motu proceedings against ICAP for issuing a revised Accounting Technical Release 14 (ATR-14). Approved at ICAP's 197th Council meeting on July 25, 2008, the revised ATR-14 set minimum hourly charge-out rates and fixed minimum audit fees for public sector entities. CCP found this in violation of Section 4(1) of the Competition Ordinance, 2007, which prohibits anti-competitive agreements. The Commission declared ATR-14 null and void, directed ICAP to withdraw it from the Members' Handbook, and publish a withdrawal notice in two newspapers. A fine of Rs. 1 million was also imposed. ICAP challenged the decision before CAT. Representing ICAP, senior counsel Dr. Farrukh Nasim argued that the institute is a statutory regulator and has the authority to set minimum fees for audit engagements, especially for government institutions. He urged the tribunal to overturn the penalty. CCP's counsel countered that ICAP, though a regulatory body, cannot fix prices in a competitive market. The Commission termed such practices as collusive price-fixing—strictly prohibited under all modern competition laws. The tribunal has reserved its judgment. The outcome is likely to impact how professional bodies operate within competitive sectors going forward. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
South China Morning Post
06-02-2025
- Business
- South China Morning Post
More must be done in Hong Kong's fair competition push
Hong Kong prides itself as an open economy with level playing fields and fair competition for all. However, the free market may be compromised by some long-standing malpractice or dominance of individual players in certain trades. Thankfully, the situation is being rectified as the Competition Commission steps up education and enforcement of antitrust legislation. In a positive step, the statutory watchdog has launched a website to help small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) better navigate the Competition Ordinance. This followed a survey showing that while more than 70 per cent of respondents believed the ordinance may help curtail anticompetitive activities, only a quarter were adequately equipped to comply with the law. With the survey showing just 24 per cent of SMEs interviewed had implemented measures or introduced training to ensure compliance, it is hoped that the new website can help fill the gaps. It covers four areas: details of the ordinance, risk assessment, information for SMEs to identify whether they are victims of anticompetitive practices, and a template that helps firms design a compliance programme. The commission said the materials covered up to 90 per cent of what SMEs needed to know about the ordinance and would help provide resources that many businesses lacked. The statutory watchdog was established following the enactment of the antitrust legislation in June 2012. While business awareness of the dos and don'ts has been on the increase over the past decade, there is still room for improvement when it comes to compliance and efficiency. After more than three years of proceedings, a cartel case involving a public housing cleaning service has finally concluded with a HK$22 million penalty and three director disqualification orders imposed by the Competition Tribunal. The fight against anticompetitive trade practices is still a work in progress. As the watchdog conceded, a misunderstanding about what is prohibited under the law remains, such as the belief that a cartel arrangement is legal if it does not influence the market price. More proactive efforts are needed to ensure compliance by SMEs with legal requirements.
