News Update

ST - Amendment made to FA, 1994 on 14.05.2015 making service tax applicable retrospectively on chit-fund business is only prospective - Refund payable of tax paid between 01.07.2012 to 13.05.2015: HCST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Amnesty Scheme, being of the nature of an exemption from the requirement to pay the actual tax due to the government, have to be considered strictly in favour of the revenue: HCCX - Issue involved is valuation of goods u/r 10A of CE Valuation Rules, 2000 - Appeal lies before Supreme Court: HCCus - Smuggling - A person carrying any article on his belonging would be presumed to be aware of the contents of the articles being carried by him: HCCus - Penalty that could be imposed for smuggling 3.2 kg of gold was Rs.88.40 lakhs, being the value of gold, but what is imposed is Rs.10 lakhs - Penalty not at all disproportionate: HCCus - Keeping in mind the balance of convenience and irreparable injury which may be caused to Revenue, importer to continue indemnity bond of 115 crore and possession of confiscated diamonds to remain with department: HCCus - OIA was passed in October 2022 remanding the matter to adjudicating authority but matter not yet disposed of - Six weeks' time granted to dispose proceedings: HCI-T - High Court need not intervene in matter involving factual issues; petitioner may utilise option of appeal: HCChina asks Blinken to select between cooperation or confrontationI-T - Unexplained cash credit - additions u/s 68 unsustainable where based on conjecture & surmise alone: ITATHonda to set up USD 11 bn EV plant in CanadaI-T - Re-assessment is invalid where based only on a suspicion that income escaped assessment & where not based on concrete reasons to believe for commencing such proceedings : ITATImran Khan banned from flaying State InstitutionsI-T - Income from sale of flats cannot be computed in assessee's hands, where legal possession of flats had not been handed over to buyers in that particular AY: ITATPro-Palestine demonstration spreads across US universities; 100 arrestedI-T - Investment activities in venture capital which are not covered in negative list under Schedule III to SEBI Regulations, qualifies for deduction u/s 10(23FB): ITATNATO asks China to stop backing Russia if keen to forge close ties with WestCus - When Department has not complied with time limit, the order issued for revocation of licence or order issued for continuation of suspension licence cannot sustain: CESTATNY top court quashes conviction of Harvey Weinstein in rape caseWeather prediction normal for phase 2 poll dayIndiGo orders 30 Airbus A350s for long haulsST - Appellant is an 'authorised medical practitioner' providing 'healthcare services' - services exempted in terms of clause 2(i) of notification 25/2012-ST: Commr(A)RBI to issue fresh guidelines for banks to freeze suspected bank accounts being used for cyber crimesREC avails SACE-Covered Green Loan for 60.5 Billion Japanese YenStudy finds Coca-Cola accounts for 11% of branded plastic pollution worldwideCus - 'Small Form-factor Pluggable Optical Transceivers' are classifiable under CTH 8517 7090 and not under CTH 8517 62 90 - entitled for benefit of duty concession under 57/2017-Cus: CESTATDoNER discusses Development of Tourism in North EastCX - Appellant is eligible for exemption under Notfn 12/2012-CE upon fulfilling all conditions stipulated therein, thus sufficiently establishing that goods dealt with by Appellants qualify for exemption: CESTAT
 
Car Manufacturers face Rs 2500 Cr penalty for anti-competitive behaviour

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, AUG 30, 2014: THE Competition Commission of India has passed an order under Sec 27 of the Act, 2002 and this order is being dubbed as an eye opener in explaining many concepts.

As per the records, the information was filed by Shamsher Kataria, who highlighted the anti-competitive practices of the car makers in the country by restricting availability of genuine spare parts and technical know-how required to effectively repair, maintain or service the automobile manufactured by the OP's (Opposite parties).

The informant also highlighted that original equipment suppliers (OES's) and other suppliers were restrained by the OP's from selling the spare parts/components in the open market. U.S. example was cited, where several states had introduced the "Right to Repair Act" to curb restrictive practice by automobile industry.

Based on the information, the Commission formed an opinion that prima-facie case exists in the matter and accordingly, ordered it's Director General to conduct investigation into the matter and submit a report. The DG proposed that investigation may be allowed to examine the alleged anti-competitive trade practices of all car manufacturers in India and not just the named OP's. The same was allowed by the Commission, which highlights an important change in mind set, wherein the regulator took a proactive step of its own with the sole objective of promoting competition.

The Commission after carefully going through the DG's Report and the submissions of the OP's (car manufacturers) and other stakeholders, recorded it's conclusion.

Relevant Market

The commission concluded that the relevant market comprises of following markets, i.e 1) Primary Market consisting of manufacturing and the sale of passenger vehicles and 2) The secondary market or the aftermarket comprising of the two segments i.e a) Supply of spare parts and b) provisions of after sale services.

The commission discussed the concept of aftermarket and distinguished it with "systems market" and rejected the contention of OP's that there is no distinction between the primary and secondary market and that the consumers take into account the whole life cycle cost before making a choice.

Commission observed: " The whole life costing theory is not a feasible test for an average unsophisticated consumer in the Indian automobile market. Therefore the commission is not in agreement with the submission of OEMs that the average car owner undertakes a life cycle cost analysis before purchasing a car in the primary market.

Various facts and figures were discussed, showing how some manufacturers were even facing losses in the primary market (i.e sales of car) and making up for the same by selling spares. Also the mark up on spare parts ranged from 100% to even 5000%,

After detailed discussion, in which leading cases relevant on the issue were also cited, commission concluded that violation of various provisions of the act is established and hence ordered the following under Section 27 of the Act:-

1) Develop and operate systems for training of independent repair/garages, and also facilitate easy availability of diagnostic tools. Appropriate arrangement may also be considered for providing technical support and training certificates on payment basis.

2) Allow OES to sell spare parts in open market without restriction, including on prices.

3) No restriction on operation of independent repairers/garages

4) Work for standardisation of spare parts of an increasing number of parts in such manner as they can be used across different brands, like tyres, batteries etc.

5) Not to impose blanket condition that warranties would be cancelled if the consumer avails of services of any independent repairer.

6) make available in public domain, information regarding spares etc.

It has to be seen whether the Commissions order is actually followed in letter and spirit. It would be really interesting to see, as to how does the Commission monitor the implementation of its orders which seems to be more of sermons.

Apart from above, a hefty penalty totaling to around Rs 2500 crore has also been ordered. The journey has just begun, lets see what is the next stop.


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.