India: The Excel Crop Case: Turnover vs. Relevant Turnover

Last Updated: 9 August 2017

Article by James Thomas Cox*

INTRODUCTION

Industrial manufacturing has grown with the rapid expansion of India's production market over the past twenty years. Some manufacturing companies, especially in the chemical industry, derived a significant portion of their revenue from governmental bids. These bids are often called for from one of several government agencies, and are received from only a handful of companies. With so few participants, collusive behavior has occurred on occasion with negative market effects. Recently, the Supreme Court ("SC") in "Excel Crop. Care Limited vs. Competition Commission of India and Ors."1confirmed a Competition Commission of India ("CCI") ruling that three Aluminum Phosphide Tablets ("APT") producers had participated in "bid rigging"2 in violation of Section 33 of the Competition Act, 2002 ("Act").

This newsletter aims to analyze the rulings of the CCI, Competition Appellate Tribunal ("COMPAT"), and SC, and what further issues companies must consider in response to this case.

1. Facts and CCI Ruling

The Food Corporation of India ("FCI") complained to CCI on February 4, 2011 that Excel Crop Care Limited ("Excel"), United Phosphorous Limited ("United"), and Sandhya Organics Chemicals ("Sandhya")4 had formed a cartel and agreed to raise bid prices between 2007 and 2009 for APT. FCI also claimed the companies had submitted identical rates in the tenders for the purchase of APT since 2002. This potentially illegal behavior was ominous for FCI because its demand for APT had doubled in the previous 3 years and was expected to continue rising. From the complaint, the CCI instructed the Director General ("DG") to investigate the matter.5

The DG found that majority buyers of APT were government entities and only four companies manufactured APT in India. Although government tenders for APT were issued globally, no bids typically came from outside India. The DG also found that from 2002 to 2009 all the companies quoted identical rates at each tender invited by FCI, except in 2007. Further, at least two of the three suppliers had offered identical quotes at least 13 times to several government agencies between 2007 and 2011, including twice after FCI's complaint was filed. Finally, the companies had uniformly boycotted a tender offer made by FCI in 2011. The DG concluded that these facts overcame the possibility of coincidence and concluded an agreement to limit competition must have been formed.

In response to the DG's findings, the companies gave largely similar arguments. Firstly, they argued any agreement for a May 2009 tender could not be considered since Section 3 was notified after the tender closed. They also claimed the 2011 boycott was out of the purview of the complaint and could not be considered. Secondly, they claimed a change in price was a result of a rise in cost of a raw ingredient of APT imported from China. Thirdly, there was no further evidence of an agreement occurring, no phone call, or document, or otherwise. The identical prices could be attributed to the companies basing their quotes on past tender offers. They claimed no agreements were made between them regarding their bid prices.

Considering the arguments and findings, the CCI ruled the companies had violated the provisions of Section 3 by their actions between 2009 and 2011. In regard to the applicability of the law and ability of DG to investigate the boycott, the CCI ruled the DG was responsible for investigating if any illegal conduct had occurred at any time. He should not make a fact specific or narrow investigation and could investigate the 2011 boycott and signs of agreement in 2009 after Section 3 was notified, even if those acts arose from an agreement made previously. Next, the CCI held the "coincidence" of identical price quoting had a zero percent chance of happening without some type of agreement. Despite no "physical" evidence, the circumstantial evidence was enough. The companies had varying cost structures and geographical locations that would, in normal circumstances, assume different bid prices.

The CCI awarded penalties of approximately USD 9.8 million for Excel, USD 241,538 for Sandhya, and USD 39 million for United.6 The penalties were calculated as 9% of the companies' average turnover from the previous 3 years as allowed under Section 27(b).7

2. COMPAT's Findings

Unhappy with both the ruling and the penalties, all three companies preferred an appeal before the COMPAT and raised the same arguments with the additional complaint that the penalties were too high. They argued that only relevant turnover should have been considered as a basis for penalty. Relevant turnover is not defined or mentioned in the Act, but is generally turnover related to the product in question.8 The companies believed they had been penalized too high for the harm they might have caused and should have been penalized only on turnover related to the production of APT.

The COMPAT rejected all appeals except the amount of penalty imposed by the CCI. Considering the arguments, COMPAT first chided the CCI for not giving any justification for the 9% penalty. Then, it acknowledged the penalty at 9% of total turnover was not unreasonable since the APT was used for food-grains in the public distribution system and the companies' behavior amounted to taking from the lowest members of society. Despite this, COMPAT ruled that the penalty must be calculated on "relevant turnover." This penalty better aligned with the doctrine of proportionality and pronounced the need for the CCI to explain its rationale when handing out harsh penalties. Penalties were reduced to approximately USD 450,000 for Excel and USD 1 million for United. For Sandhya, COMPAT separately considered a reduction because its only product was APT and it was much smaller than the other companies. As a result, both these factors were sufficient to reduce its penalty by 1/10th for a total of USD 24, 154.

3. The Supreme Court

Again faced with fines, the companies appealed COMPAT's decision to the SC and the CCI also appealed the COMPAT's lowering of penalties to the apex court. The SC combined the appeals into one case and evaluated four, main issues: (i) whether the CCI appropriately considered the May 2009 tender, (ii) whether the CCI could investigate behavior occurring after the complaint was made, specifically the 2011 boycott, (iii) whether the purported violations under Section 3 were justified, and (iv) whether a penalty levied under Section 27 had to be on total turnover, or if it could be assessed only from a company's "relevant turnover."

3.1 Pre-Enactment Actions: The appellants again argued that an alleged violation from the May 2009 tender amounted to a retrospective enforcement of the law.9 In response, the SC ruled that the companies were penalized for acts taken not only in March 2009 but also for actions taken in later 2009, 2010, and 2011 when the Act was in force. Further, the agreement for anti-competitive behavior in relation to the March 2009 tender did not stop in effect after the initial offer. There were rounds of negotiation in June 2009 where actions were reflective of previous agreements, taken before the law went into effect, but acted upon after and, therefore, still fell under the scope of the law and worthy of investigation. Thus, the SC upheld the CCI and COMPAT rulings regarding the March 2009 tender.

3.2 Behavior outside of complaint made: On this issue, the SC entirely agreed with the COMPAT ruling affirming the CCI order that the DG's ability to investigate in Section 26 was large enough to include evaluating acts taken after an original complaint is made. Further, the general complaint made by FCI was not in respect of one particular tender or action, but the overall anti-competitive behavior through a cartel. The SC asserted the DG is empowered to look at all necessary facts in the investigation, which can only begin after the CCI forms a prime facie opinion that a violation has occurred. At that point, they do not have sufficient information to determine when or where the violation occurred. Therefore, the DG has the power to look at all circumstances for where a violation may have occurred before making recommendation to the CCI.

3.3 Violations Justified: The companies offered a new explanation for their identical pricing before the SC. They claimed that because there are only a couple buyers and sellers, identical pricing was a natural occurrence. They also claimed the 2011 tender was boycotted because its payment for placing a bid was too high. They also pointed out that no companies had submitted a bid then. The court rejected these arguments. First, identical pricing was incredibly strange given the differences in the companies' production cost and geographic location. Regardless of location all bids were the same. Second, the sheer volume of identically priced bids was also strange. Third, the probability that some type of anti-competitive agreement could occur was enhanced with only four suppliers in India. Fourth, the companies offered varying prices for different bids, but identical prices at each bid. This was enough circumstantial evidence to prove an agreement existed without a proper rebuttal from the companies. The SC concluded that the CCI's ruling was entirely justified.

3.4 Appropriate Penalty: The final issue arose from the CCI's unhappiness with the COMPAT's reduction in penalties by only considering relevant turnover. The CCI argued Section 27 only uses the word "turnover" and, therefore, considering only relevant turnover would amount to adding "relevant" into the statute unjustifiably. They also believed that the penalties are primarily used as a deterrent for future behavior, and, therefore, were justified if slightly out of proportion. However, the SC confirmed the COMPAT's view that only relevant turnover should be considered on the basis that these violations typically arise from only particular products or circumstances and imposing fines that draw from resources unrelated to those particular products or circumstances would lead to unfair and punitive outcomes. The SC also emphasized the importance of proportionality in punishment, and stated that the deterrent as well as punishing intent of the penalty would be adequately served when considering only relevant turnover.

CONCLUSION

The SC's judgment reinforcing a proportional approach to calculating penalties under the Act will be welcomed by companies. It potentially removes more punitive calculations going forward, and overall lowers the risk companies take when they engage in behavior that could be investigated under sections 3 and 4. This approach aligns India's practices with the approach taken in other developed competition law regimes, such as Europe or America. However, given the SC's support for a robust investigatory process, companies should be cautious in all bidding processes, more so, when a complaint has been filed against them with the CCI. Rather, they should pay close attention to regulations and SC rulings, and amendments to the Act to be better prepared as to what kind of behavior will be tolerated. With this ruling, the SC seems to have cut CCI's penal powers and it may be possible other companies who were fined on overall turnover, may set the appeal process in motion.

Footnotes

* This E-Newsline is prepared by James Thomas Cox, a first year J.D. student at The University of Georgia School of Law, Athens (under the guidance of Priti Suri, Founder - Partner) who is pursuing his internship at PSA

1. 2017(6) SCALE241

2. Section 3 defines "bid rigging" as any agreement, between enterprises or persons engaged in identical or similar production or trading of goods or provision of services, which has the effect of eliminating or reducing competition for bids or adversely affecting or manipulating the process for bidding.

3. Section 3 prohibits any type of agreement between enterprises that has an appreciable anti-competitive affect in India. Bid rigging or collusive bidding qualify as anti-competitive.

4. There was a fourth company included in the complaint, Agrosynth Chemicals Limited, which was exonerated by the CCI and not discussed by the COMPAT or SC.

5. Section 26 equips the CCI to order the DG to investigate a matter once it has a prima facie belief a violation of the Act has occurred.

6. USD 1 = about INR 65.

7. Section 27 equips the CCI to impose penalties up to ten percent of the average of the turnover for the three preceding years for violations of Section 3 or 4 which prohibits abuse of a dominant market position.

8. 2013 Comp LR 799, page no. 822

9. They argued this would be a retrospective enforcement of the Act, which was against the Act's intention of being a prospective legislation.

This E-Newsline is prepared by James Thomas Cox, a first year J.D. student at The University of Georgia School of Law, Athens (under the guidance of Priti Suri, Founder - Partner) who is pursuing his internship at PSA

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.