Coal handling charges at port found imposed through mandatory coordination fees; impugned order set aside and remitted.

Increase in coal handling charges concerned definition of the relevant product and geographic market and whether the terminal was dominant and abused dominance by imposing mandatory coordination and liaisoning charges through three related entities; the tribunal treated the terminal as the sole-player dominant undertaking and accepted DG/CCI findings that the charges were mandatory and collected via entities controlled by the same group, constituting abusive conduct causing appreciable adverse effect on competition, set aside the impugned CCI order, allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the authority for fresh adjudication after hearing parties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the relevant market should be defined as the provision of common user coal terminal services in and around Kamarajar Port excluding Krishnapatnam Port; (ii) Whether Chettinad International Coal Terminal Pvt. Ltd. (CICTPL) held a dominant position in the relevant market during the relevant period; (iii) Whether CICTPL abused its dominant position by imposing mandatory coordination and liaisoning charges through third-party entities.

Issue (i): Whether the relevant geographic market is confined to in and around Kamarajar Port or includes Krishnapatnam Port.

Analysis: Consideration was given to transport costs, plant proximity, consumer preferences of fixed-location thermal power producers, hinterland analysis (captive versus contestable), sample user data collected by the DG, and comparative port volumes. Evidence showed most affected power producers were located near Kamarajar Port, significant transport cost disadvantages existed for alternative ports, and the DG's supplementary analysis delineated a distinct hinterland for Kamarajar Port. The CCI's inclusion of Krishnapatnam rested on overlapping usage and larger aggregate volumes, but the DG's focused analysis on end-user locations and switching behaviour indicates limited practical substitutability for the fixed consumers at issue.

Conclusion: The relevant geographic market is confined to the provision of common user coal terminal services in and around Kamarajar Port; Krishnapatnam Port is excluded for the purpose of assessing market power as applied to the aggrieved users.

Issue (ii): Whether CICTPL was dominant in the defined relevant market during the relevant period.

Analysis: Market shares, number and strength of competitors within the defined geographic market, presence of only one common-user coal berth at Kamarajar Port, high entry barriers, user dependence due to transport economics, and growth of traffic at CICTPL despite tariff increases were examined. DG supplementary findings showed CICTPL was the sole common-user provider at the port and that sizable proportions of relevant users coal volumes were handled at CICTPL, supporting an ability to operate independently of competitive forces within the defined market.

Conclusion: CICTPL held a dominant position in the relevant market during the relevant period.

Issue (iii): Whether CICTPL abused its dominant position by imposing mandatory coordination and liaisoning charges through third-party entities.

Analysis: The findings reviewed include user responses to DG enquiries showing many importers treated the charges as mandatory, documentary evidence of links between the third-party entities and the Chettinad Group, the absence of transparent commercial justification for the services, and the fact that such charges were collected outside published tariffs thereby avoiding port revenue sharing. The DG and the CCI recorded that the charges were effectively mandatory; when combined with a finding of dominance, imposition of such mandatory, non-transparent third-party charges amounts to conduct that imposes unfair conditions and diverts commercial value from the competitive tariff framework.

Conclusion: CICTPL abused its dominant position by imposing mandatory coordination and liaisoning charges through related third-party entities, amounting to an appreciable adverse effect on competition.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order that excluded Krishnapatnam Port from the relevant market assessment and declined to treat CICTPL as dominant is set aside; the matter is remitted to the Commission for fresh consideration consistent with the corrected market definition, the finding of dominance, and examination of abuse and remedies after hearing the parties and considering further investigation if necessary.

Ratio Decidendi: For assessing dominance and abuse under Section 4, the relevant market must be defined with regard to end-use, transport costs, and consum­er-specific substitutability; where a single common-user terminal services a distinct local hinterland and users are transport-cost constrained, that terminal can possess dominance, and imposition of mandatory, opaque third-party charges by related entities constitutes abuse.

---