https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275663 Non-supply of the informant's objections did not amount to denial of natural justice where notice of the DG report was given and opportunities to inspect and respond were available but not used. The allegation of bias against a member was rejected because the materials did not show a real likelihood of bias and the objection was not raised promptly. On the merits, coordinated non-participation by eligible explosive suppliers in a reverse auction, followed by later participation at lower prices, supported a finding of concerted boycott and bid manipulation under Section 3(3)(d) of the Competition Act, 2002. The penalty was reduced because mitigating factors and proportionality were not adequately considered. en-us Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:01:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275663 Non-supply of the informant's objections did not amount to denial of natural justice where notice of the DG report was given and opportunities to inspect and respond were available but not used. The allegation of bias against a member was rejected because the materials did not show a real likelihood of bias and the objection was not raised promptly. On the merits, coordinated non-participation by eligible explosive suppliers in a reverse auction, followed by later participation at lower prices, supported a finding of concerted boycott and bid manipulation under Section 3(3)(d) of the Competition Act, 2002. The penalty was reduced because mitigating factors and proportionality were not adequately considered. Case-Laws Law of Competition Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275663