Port logistics providers cleared of dominant position abuse allegations under Competition Act Section 26(2)

CCI dismissed the case against port logistics service providers at Visakhapatnam Port for alleged abuse of dominant position. The informant complained about lease agreement disguised as license agreement to avoid stamp duty, enforcement of lock-in clauses, refusal to adjust rental arrears against security deposit, and threats regarding power supply and security deposit forfeiture. CCI held that disguising lease as license agreement to avoid stamp duty is not a competition issue under the Competition Act, 2002. The alleged conduct did not raise competition concerns or constitute prima facie contravention of Sections 3 and 4. Information was closed under Section 26(2) without investigation, and no relief under Section 33 was granted.

---

---

Issues:
Alleged abuse of dominant position by the Opposite Parties in contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Factual Background:
The case involves an Information filed by the Informant, a storage facility provider, against two Opposite Parties (OP-1 and OP-2) alleging contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The Informant engaged in providing storage facilities to various consumers, including FMCG companies and pharmaceutical companies, through a temperature-controlled cold storage plant leased from OP-1.

2. Allegations by the Informant:
The Informant alleged that the lease agreement was camouflaged as a 'Leave and License Agreement' to avoid stamp duty, and the terms were unilaterally set by the OPs, putting the Informant in a 'take it or leave it' situation. The Informant also claimed that the OPs had exclusive control over the temperature control mechanism in the cold storage units, leading to threats of power supply disconnection for non-compliance.

3. Legal Dispute:
The Informant further contended that the actions of the OPs, including enforcing a lock-in period, threatening to forfeit the security deposit, and restricting access to the cold storage plant, amounted to an abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Act. The Informant sought various reliefs, including the removal of stored goods, refund of the security deposit, and imposition of penalties on the OPs.

4. Commission's Decision:
After considering the Information and allegations, the Commission found that while some actions by the OPs raised concerns, they did not fall within the purview of the Competition Act, 2002. The Commission noted that the issues raised, such as the lock-in period enforcement and threats of power supply disconnection, appeared to be contractual disputes between the parties rather than competition law violations.

5. Conclusion:
Consequently, the Commission held that there was no prima facie case of contravention of the Act warranting an investigation. The Information was ordered to be closed under Section 26(2) of the Act, and no relief under Section 33 was granted. The Secretary was directed to communicate the order to the Informant, bringing the matter to a close.

---