Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) examined whether Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL), a public sector undertaking, contravened Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, by abusing its dominant position in the market for mining and supply of Beach Sand Sillimanite in India. CCI held that IREL is an 'enterprise' under the Act and the relevant geographic market is India. Despite IREL's high market share, CCI found no evidence of excessive or discriminatory pricing by IREL in violation of Sections 4(2)(a)(ii) and 4(2)(a)(i) respectively. CCI observed that differential pricing based on quantity, customer relationships, and assured offtake is a normal business practice. Consequently, CCI concluded that IREL did not contravene the provisions of Section 4 and directed the matter to be closed, while addressing confidentiality requests from parties.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) examined whether Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL), a public sector undertaking, contravened Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, by abusing its dominant position in the market for mining and supply of Beach Sand Sillimanite in India. CCI held that IREL is an 'enterprise' under the Act and the relevant geographic market is India. Despite IREL's high market share, CCI found no evidence of excessive or discriminatory pricing by IREL in violation of Sections 4(2)(a)(ii) and 4(2)(a)(i) respectively. CCI observed that differential pricing based on quantity, customer relationships, and assured offtake is a normal business practice. Consequently, CCI concluded that IREL did not contravene the provisions of Section 4 and directed the matter to be closed, while addressing confidentiality requests from parties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
