<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (2) TMI 582 - COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221177</link>
    <description>A public authority&#039;s reclassification of commodities and revision of freight, when exercised under a statutory power, did not by itself establish a prima facie abuse of dominant position. The Commission held that the impugned instructions were uniformly applicable and formed part of the statutory function of fixing and revising freight; on the material before it, no prima facie contravention of the Competition Act, 2002 was made out and no investigation was warranted. A dissenting member considered the rail freight market to be dominated by the railway enterprise and treated the end-use based freight differentiation as prima facie unfair and discriminatory. The majority view prevailed and the complaint was closed at the threshold.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194534" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (2) TMI 582 - COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221177</link>
      <description>A public authority&#039;s reclassification of commodities and revision of freight, when exercised under a statutory power, did not by itself establish a prima facie abuse of dominant position. The Commission held that the impugned instructions were uniformly applicable and formed part of the statutory function of fixing and revising freight; on the material before it, no prima facie contravention of the Competition Act, 2002 was made out and no investigation was warranted. A dissenting member considered the rail freight market to be dominated by the railway enterprise and treated the end-use based freight differentiation as prima facie unfair and discriminatory. The majority view prevailed and the complaint was closed at the threshold.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Law of Competition</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221177</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>