https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226211 The Commission concluded that the allegations of abuse of dominant position and collusion in the iron ore production market in India were unfounded. It determined that the opposing party was not dominant in the relevant market, as their market share was only 16% in the broader iron ore production/supply in India. The Commission also found no evidence of anti-competitive practices, such as collusion or deliberate production reduction, that would necessitate further investigation under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. Consequently, the case was closed under Section 26(2) of the Act. en-us Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Nov 2024 17:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226211 The Commission concluded that the allegations of abuse of dominant position and collusion in the iron ore production market in India were unfounded. It determined that the opposing party was not dominant in the relevant market, as their market share was only 16% in the broader iron ore production/supply in India. The Commission also found no evidence of anti-competitive practices, such as collusion or deliberate production reduction, that would necessitate further investigation under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. Consequently, the case was closed under Section 26(2) of the Act. Case-Laws Law of Competition Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226211