NABL cleared of competition violations for requiring laboratories to change from proprietorship structure

CCI dismissed allegations against NABL regarding a circular requiring accredited laboratories to transition from proprietorship to other business forms by December 2023. The Commission found no violation of Competition Act Sections 3 or 4, noting the circular merely established structural requirements for accreditation services. No anti-competitive agreement was demonstrated, and the matter was previously examined in Case No. 12 of 2023 with similar findings. The information was closed under Section 26(2) with no relief granted under Section 33.

---

---

Issues:
Alleged contravention of provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL).

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Alleged Violation of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act
The Informant, an association of Indian laboratories, filed an Information alleging that NABL, the accreditation body, violated Section 4(2)(c) of the Act by issuing a circular directing accredited CABs to align with specific forms of entities by a certain deadline. The Informant argued that this directive was discriminatory, favored larger players, and disadvantaged small entrepreneurs. The Informant highlighted challenges faced by small labs in transitioning to new forms of entities, such as lease cancellations, loan transfer issues, heavy GST implications, and the loss of goodwill. The Informant contended that such a move would lead to the closure of several CAB businesses. The Commission noted the Informant's concerns but referred to a previous case where a similar circular was upheld, stating that the structure mandated by NABL was essential for seeking accreditation services and aligning with ISO standards. The Commission found no reason to intervene with the circular, as it did not appear to be abusive or anti-competitive.

Issue 2: Alleged Violation of Section 3 of the Act
The Informant also alleged a violation of Section 3 of the Act by NABL, claiming that the requirement for enterprises to register under the Companies Act, 2013, as part of accreditation compliance, favored larger players and posed challenges for micro and small enterprises. However, the Informant did not provide specific agreements or documents suggesting the existence of anti-competitive agreements. The Commission, after reviewing the facts and circumstances, concluded that no case was made out against NABL under either Section 3 or 4 of the Act. Consequently, the Information was directed to be closed under Section 26(2) of the Act, and no relief under Section 33 of the Act was granted.

In conclusion, the Commission found no merit in the allegations of anti-competitive conduct by NABL and closed the case, stating that the impugned circular did not raise competition concerns and was essential for maintaining accreditation standards. The Commission emphasized the importance of aligning with ISO requirements and upheld NABL's directive as necessary for ensuring trust, accountability, and compliance in the accreditation process.

---