Prima facie antitrust screening requires concrete evidence; regulated pricing and disclosed tender preferences did not establish abuse of dominance.

A prima facie case under section 26(2) of the Competition Act requires credible and concrete material; unsupported assertions, sample cost cards and general allegations of loss were insufficient to justify further inquiry. In a regulated liquor procurement framework, pricing linked to cost sheets, taxes, levies and policy considerations did not by itself show arbitrariness or abuse of dominance. Alleged preference for a state-owned brand was not shown to distort competition or consumer choice because it was disclosed in the tender upfront, and the differential cash-discount structure was commercially explained and unproven as harmful. On that basis, no prima facie contravention of section 4 was made out and closure of the information was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the closure of the information under section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 for absence of a prima facie case of abuse of dominant position was justified, including the allegations of unilateral price fixation, preferential treatment to a government-owned brand, differential cash discounts, and additional deductions.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that at the stage of section 26 the informant must place credible and concrete material sufficient to enable formation of a prima facie opinion. The materials relied upon, including sample cost cards and broad assertions regarding losses, were found insufficient because they did not establish actual loss, market exit, or any reliable factual basis for further investigation. The Tribunal also accepted that pricing occurred in a highly regulated liquor procurement framework, where the purchase price was linked to cost sheets, taxes, levies, and policy considerations, and therefore the procurement mechanism did not by itself show arbitrariness. As to the alleged preference to the state-owned brand and the differential cash discounts, the Tribunal found that the preference was declared upfront in the tender and was not shown to distort competition or consumer choice, while the discount structure was commercially explained and unsupported by evidence of harm.

Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that no prima facie contravention of section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 was made out and that the CCI was justified in closing the information without directing investigation.

---