India

South Asian markets are one of the fastest growing markets for vehicle manufacturers worldwide. However, doing business in South Asia has its own challenges. The anti-monopoly watchdog of India i.e. the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in its recent judgment dated August 25th, 20141, penalised fourteen vehicle manufacturing companies in India with a fine of over INR 2,500 crore (about US$400 million) for violating trade norms by “monopolistic control over spare parts and diagnostic tools”, after finding them guilty of indulging in anti-competitive practices and abusing their dominant position in the Indian automobile market contravening the provisions of Competition Act, 2002(the Act).

The CCI was initially approached to probe into the possible anti-competitive practices (such as restricting the availability of genuine spare parts and technical know-how i.e. diagnostic tools, softwares required to service and repair automobiles) of three companies, namely, Honda Siel Cars India, Volkswagen India and Fiat India. On the request of Director General (DG), the CCI directed it to include fourteen other vehicle manufacturers also in the scope of its investigation.

Pursuant to a detailed investigation by DG, the CCI has ruled that fourteen companies, including the largest vehicle manufacturers in the Indian automobile sector such as Tata Motors, Maruti Suzuki and other luxury vehicle manufacturers such BMW and Mercedes Benz, were found to be guilty of violating trade norms, Tata Motors and Maruti Suzuki have been penalised with the maximum penalty of INR 1346 crores (about US$220 million) and 471 crores (about US$77 million) respectively.

The investigation by DG revealed that Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) in India violated competition norms with respect to its agreements with local Original Equipment Suppliers (OESs) and authorised dealers. Through these agreements, vehicle manufacturers imposed absolute restrictive covenants, thereby, resulting in complete foreclosure of the after-market for supply of spare parts and other diagnostic tools. Agreements between OEMs and OESs contained clauses requiring authorized dealers to source spare parts only from OEMs or their approved vendors, creating exclusive supply and distribution agreements. This practice of OEMs was resulting in creation of entry barriers and denial of market access to independent vehicle repairers, disabling them from providing services in the aftermarket for repair and maintenance of vehicles.

The CCI in its judgment, interalia, directed vehicle manufacturing companies, the following:
1. To adopt policies which make spare parts and diagnostic tools easily available in the open market to customers/independent vehicle repairers.
2. To allow OESs to sell spare parts in the open market without any restriction, including on prices. Wherever vehicle manufacturing companies hold intellectual property rights on some parts, they may charge royalty/fees through contracts drafted to ensure they are not in violation of the Act.
3. To allow OESs to sell spare parts under their own brand name, if they wish.

Similar Penalties in China: Foreign vehicle companies in China have been under the scrutiny since the beginning of this year, for possible anti-competitive practices such as fixing the retail prices charged by their downstream dealers and service providers, which are likely to contravene China’s Anti-Monopoly Law.

The regulatory authority in China, National Development and Reform Commission is known to be probing more than 1,000 domestic and foreign firms in the auto sector over monopolistic practices and on September 11th, 2014 has announced that it will fine Audi US$40.5 million and Chrysler US$5.2 million for indulging in anti-competitive practices.

Anticipating similar penalties against them, companies such as Toyota have declared that they would reduce the prices for the luxury Lexus car models in China.

Conclusion: Considering the quantum of penalty, it seems like majority of the aggrieved vehicle manufacturers would be appealing to the Competition Appellate Tribunal under Section 53B of the Act to seek a stay immediately on the judgment dated August 25th, 2014. As the Competition Appellate Tribunal did not have a Chairman at the time, Maruti Suzuki, approached the Delhi High Court and has succeeded in seeking a stay against the order of CCI. It is to be seen how the Appellate Tribunal would now deal with the order of CCI.

Endnote
1. In Re: Shamsher Kataria Informant v. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. (Case no. 03/2011)

Clasis Law
14th Floor, Dr Gopal Das Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road
New Delhi 110 001, India
Tel: (91) 11 4213 0000 Fax: (91) 11 4213 0099
Email: sumeet.lall@clasislaw.com
mithu.jain@clasislaw.com
Website: www.clasislaw.com

Related Articles by Firm
Radical changes in the Foreign Direct Investment regime
INDIA- It is observed that India has the potential to attract even more foreign investment which could be achieved by liberalising ...
Mare Maritime Singapore Pte Ltd Vs. M.T. Everrich 8 [Notice of Motion (L) No. 2418 of 2015 in Admiralty Suit No. 854 of 2015]
Background: The owners of EVERRICH 8 (the Vessel), through their subsidiary Yuanland Ltd, entered into voyage charterparty with Rakha Al Khaleej International LLC ...
India's The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 makes major changes to the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance 2015 gives the necessary impetus for ease of conducting arbitration in India and enables speedy settlement of commercial disputes.
Multiple lenders = multiple stamping
On August 11, 2015 the division bench of the Supreme Court of India overturned a full bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in the matter of Coastal Gujarat Power Limited v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority....
Indian patent office revokes Hoffman-La Roche’s ‘Valganciclovir’ patent
The Controller of Patents (India) recently revoked the patent granted for the anti-retroviral drug ‘Valganciclovir’ used for treating active cytomegalovirus retinitis infection (CMV) ...
Urban reforms – three urban rejuvenation schemes launched
There is a compelling need to develop sustainable and technology-driven urban centres, partly as the burgeoning urban population is creating pressure on existing cities and partly to address the growing ...
Highlights of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2015
The Companies (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Amendment Act), which aims to amend the rigidities of the Companies Act, 2013 (Act), has ...
India - Projects, energy and infrastructure update
Including: Long-term infrastructure bonds;Smart cities mission and urban rejuvenation scheme; Railways to e-auction re-development of stations; New hybrid annuity model of PPP for the road sector; Shell set for global acquisition of BG; and IFC signs master co-operation agreement ...
The New Land Bill – ground reality
The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Bill, 2015 (2015 Bill) was …
Prima Facie Validity of a registered trade mark in India – A strong but rebuttable presumption
The Indian trademarks law recognises both statutory as well as common law remedy to protect the rights of the proprietor of a trade mark. However, it is well-known that …
Insurance Laws (Amendment) Bill passed as ordinance in India
The long-awaited Insurance Laws (Amendment) Bill (the Bill) has become a provisional law in India. The Bill, which could not be passed in Parliament in its winter session, was promulgated by the President …
Need for uniform stamp duty incidence across all States of India
‘Stamp Duty’ is a tax levied on an instrument by which any right or liability is, or purports to be created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded …
‘Make in India’ campaign: Opportunities for investors
With a vision of leading the economy towards a path of high sustainable growth, the Prime Minister of India on September 25th, 2014 launched the ‘Make in India’ campaign. Through the …
Introduction of real estate investment trusts in India
The Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) in India have been in the news for some time. The World Bank1 describes REIT as a security sold to investors for the purpose of investing in real estate. REITs …
SC Larger Bench decision in case of Kone Elevators – distinction between ‘contracts of sale’ vis-a-vis ‘works contract’
The Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC), over-ruling the earlier decision of three-member Bench re State of A.P. v. Kone Elevators (India) Ltd1, has held that the activity of manufacturing, …
Companies Act, 2013 – implications for investors
One of the recent initiatives of the Indian Government towards ensuring sustainable economic growth and improving investment climate is enactment …
India Update, inc. Medical device controls
An overview of how and where regulatory controls apply to medical devices in India. Plus: key judgements passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; changes in corporate and commercial matters; and case laws in indirect taxation.
Related Articles
Related Articles by Jurisdiction
Highlights of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2015
The Companies (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Amendment Act), which aims to amend the rigidities of the Companies Act, 2013 (Act), has ...
Latest Articles