https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762014 CCI dismissed allegations against automotive manufacturer for abuse of dominant position in SUV pricing. Commission found the company lacked sufficient market share in SUV segment to operate independently of competitive forces or affect competitors/consumers. The dispute was deemed inter-se commercial disagreement regarding product pricing rather than competition concern. Commission ruled buyers cannot demand retroactive discounts on purchased products, and alleged pricing was not predatory. No prima facie case established under Section 4 of Competition Act, 2002. Matter closed under Section 26(2). en-us Mon, 06 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Nov 2024 07:50:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762014 CCI dismissed allegations against automotive manufacturer for abuse of dominant position in SUV pricing. Commission found the company lacked sufficient market share in SUV segment to operate independently of competitive forces or affect competitors/consumers. The dispute was deemed inter-se commercial disagreement regarding product pricing rather than competition concern. Commission ruled buyers cannot demand retroactive discounts on purchased products, and alleged pricing was not predatory. No prima facie case established under Section 4 of Competition Act, 2002. Matter closed under Section 26(2). Case-Laws Law of Competition Mon, 06 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762014