Use of Crystalline Durability Admixture in heavy infrastructure projects: nationwide market accepted, no dominance or anti-competitive conduct found, appeal dismissed

The note addresses market delineation and competition-law liability concerning the use of Crystalline Durability Admixture in heavy infrastructure projects. The product market as defined is accepted, while the proposed geographic market limited to Maharashtra is rejected and nationwide market delineation upheld, with consequent rejection of a finding of regional dominance. The procurement criterion of IRC accreditation is treated as a permissible eligibility requirement and not unfair or discriminatory. On these factual and legal bases, no abuse of dominance or cartelisation is found, no prima facie case warranted a DG investigation, and the appellate challenge to the Commissions conclusions fails.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the allegations of cartelisation under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) are made out against the accused entities; (ii) Whether Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) abused a dominant position in contravention of Section 4(2)(a)(i) and Section 4(2)(c) by prescribing IRC accreditation and in its preparation of the Identified Vendors List; (iii) Whether the Competition Commission of India erred in not directing the Director General to investigate under Section 26(1) and instead closing the matter under Section 26(2).

Issue (i): Whether the allegations of cartelisation / anti-competitive agreement under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) are established against R4, R5 and R6.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined whether the challenged arrangements fall within Section 3(3), which applies to agreements between enterprises engaged in identical or similar trade at the same horizontal level. The relationship between R4 and R5 was found to be vertical (importer and foreign parent/related entity) and R4/R5 form part of the same group under explanation (b) of Section 5. There was no evidence that R4 and R5 operated as competitors in the same market in India or entered into horizontal arrangements fixing prices or limiting supply.

Conclusion: The allegations of cartelisation under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) are not made out and the finding in favour of the respondents on this issue is upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether MSRDC abused a dominant position under Section 4(2)(a)(i) and Section 4(2)(c) by prescribing IRC accreditation and by inclusion of certain vendors in the Identified Vendors List.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the Commission's delineation of the relevant product market as Crystalline Durability Admixture (CDA) in Heavy Infrastructure Projects and the geographic market as India. MSRDC's activities were confined to Maharashtra and it was not shown to be a dominant player in the nationwide market for CDA. The mere prescription of IRC accreditation as an eligibility criterion, without evidence of dominance or discriminatory abuse in the relevant market, did not constitute abuse under Section 4.

Conclusion: There is no contravention of Section 4(2)(a)(i) or Section 4(2)(c) by MSRDC; the Commission's closure under Section 26(2) on this ground is sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether the Commission committed a procedural error by not directing an investigation by the Director General and by closing the matter under Section 26(2) despite the lack of a reply from MSRDC.

Analysis: Formation of a prima facie opinion under Section 26(1) is a precondition to ordering an investigation. The Tribunal reviewed the material on record and the Commission's procedural steps, including forwarding the information and awaiting a reply. The absence of a reply did not, by itself, create a prima facie case requiring investigation. The Commission may form its view from the information itself and invoke Regulation 17 where appropriate; here the material did not show a prima facie contravention.

Conclusion: The Commission did not commit a procedural error in not directing an investigation; closure under Section 26(2) was justified.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal finds no infirmity in the Competition Commission of Indias order closing the matter under Section 26(2); the appeal is dismissed and the Commissions conclusions on Sections 3 and 4, and its procedural decision not to order an investigation, are upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where alleged anti-competitive conduct involves entities that are vertically related or part of the same group and the claimant fails to establish that those entities operated at the same horizontal level in the relevant geographic and product market, Section 3(3) does not apply; and where the alleged offender is not dominant in the relevant market delineated, mere prescription of an eligibility criterion by a procuring authority does not constitute abuse under Section 4.

---