<?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>2024 (11) TMI 1007 - COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762021</link>
    <description>A government company selling Beach Sand Sillimanite in the open market was treated as an enterprise because the atomic energy exemption applies only to Government departments, not to a commercial PSU. The relevant market was identified as the mining and supply of Beach Sand Sillimanite in India, as the record showed no effective substitutability and homogeneous geographic conditions. IREL was found dominant in that market because of its market position, consumer dependence, and high entry barriers. However, no abuse of dominance was established: the pricing of the by-product did not support a finding of excessive pricing, and the differential pricing and supply terms were linked to commercial arrangements rather than impermissible discrimination under Section 4.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2024 17:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=778781" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 1007 - COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762021</link>
      <description>A government company selling Beach Sand Sillimanite in the open market was treated as an enterprise because the atomic energy exemption applies only to Government departments, not to a commercial PSU. The relevant market was identified as the mining and supply of Beach Sand Sillimanite in India, as the record showed no effective substitutability and homogeneous geographic conditions. IREL was found dominant in that market because of its market position, consumer dependence, and high entry barriers. However, no abuse of dominance was established: the pricing of the by-product did not support a finding of excessive pricing, and the differential pricing and supply terms were linked to commercial arrangements rather than impermissible discrimination under Section 4.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Law of Competition</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762021</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>