The Building Association of India (BAI) filed a case against cement firms and the Cement Manufacturers Association (CMA) on charges of cartelization The Competition Commission of India (CCI) inquired into the charges made by Building Association of India (BAI).  CCI found that the cement companies used the platform of Cement Manufacturers’ Association (CMA) and shared details relating to prices, capacity utilization, production and dispatch, acting in concert in fixing prices of cement and thereby restricted production and supplies in the market contravening provisions of Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) of the Competition Act, 2002. 

CCI vide order dated 31^st August, 2016 imposed penalties on cement companies and CMA, as indicated below: -

ACC Ltd.	Rs.1147.59 crores
Ambuja Cements Ltd.	Rs.1163.91 crores
Binani Cements Ltd.	Rs.167.32 crores
Century Textiles and Industries Ltd.	Rs.274.02 crores
India Cements Ltd.	Rs.187.48 crores
J K Cement Ltd.	Rs.128.54 crores
Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd.	Rs.490.01 crores
Ramco Cements Ltd.	Rs.258.63 crores
UltraTech Cement Ltd.	Rs.1175.49 crores
Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.	Rs.1323.60 crores
Cement Manufacturers’ Association	Rs.0.73 crores.

The above cement companies and CMA were directed to deposit the penalty within 60 days from the receipt of the order and they have challenged the order of CCI before the Competition Appellate Tribunal. 

This was stated by Shri Arjun Ram Meghwal, Minister of State for Corporate Affairs in written reply to a question in Lok Sabha today.

Cartelization: coordinated price and production control by cement firms led to enforcement action and monetary penalties. The Competition Commission found cement firms and their industry association exchanged price and operational data and acted concertedly to fix prices and restrict production and supply, constituting cartelization in breach of the prohibition on anti competitive horizontal agreements. The Commission imposed monetary penalties on the companies and the association, directed deposit within a fixed period, and noted that the parties have challenged the order before the appellate tribunal.