Compat sets aside CCI order in anti-competitive practices case of IATA
The Competition Appellate Tribunal also orders a fresh probe in the matter
New Delhi: The Competition Appellate Tribunal (Compat) on Thursday set aside an order of fair trade regulator Competition Commission of India (CCI) in a case of alleged abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive practices by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and its Indian arm. Dismissing the CCI findings, Compat ordered a fresh probe in the matter.
The Compat’s order came over an appeal filed by The Air Cargo Agents Association of India, challenging a CCI order passed on 4 June, 2015, which discharged IATA for alleged anti-competitive practices and abuse of dominance.
Compat allowed the appeal by Air Cargo Agents Association of India and ordered the director general (DG) of CCI to start a fresh investigation over alleged abuse of dominance. The Air Cargo Agents Association of India pleaded that prescription of the rate of commission by the IATA to the cargo agents was anti-competitive and hurt their interests.
In a 72-page order, Compat said “the impugned order is set aside and the DG is directed to conduct fresh investigation into the allegations levelled by the appellant against the respondents and submit a report to the Commission a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order". It directed that if the DG is unable to submit fresh investigation report within sixty days, then he may approach the Commission for extension of time for submission of the fresh investigation report.
The Compat order holds that the “DG committed serious illegality by not recording a finding on the allegation of abuse of dominant position and consequential violation of provisions of the Competition Act, 2002" by IATA and its Indian affiliate. The order added that the order is liable to be set aside because the Commission failed to take cognisance and decide the plea raised by the appellant in the context of the said illegality committed by the DG.
“In view of the above conclusion, we do not consider it necessary to deal with and decide the appellant’s challenge to the negative finding recorded by the DG on the allegation of violation of Section 3 by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, which have been approved by the Commission," the order said.
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!