calibrating the pulse of competition law in india.pdf

8/9/2019 Calibrating the Pulse of Competition Law in India.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/calibrating-the-pulse-of-competition-law-in-indiapdf 1/20

An EY Fraud Investigation & DisputeServices report

Calibrating the pulse ofCompetition Law in India



2 | Calibrating the pulse of Competition Law in India - An EY Fraud Investigation & Dispute Services report

ContentsExecutive summary 5

Competition Law in India 6

Emerging trends in India’s Competition Law 10 ► Need to sensitize organizations on importance of complying with 10

Competition Law

► e-Discovery in Competition Law-related investigations 12

► Dawn raids — a reality this year 13

► Unstructured and widespread data hindering economic analyses 14

► Penalty guidelines — need of the hour 15

► Lukewarm response to “Leniency” applications 16

► Concerns about data-sharing at Trade Association meetings 17



3Calibrating the pulse of Competition Law in India - An EY Fraud Investigation & Dispute Services report |

ForewordWith the increasing impact of competition-related regulations in recent years in India,including rising levels of nes, many large companies have been accused of cartelization orof abusing their dominant positions in their markets. This has led to considerable time andmoney being spent on dealing with investigations by the Competition Commission of India(the Commission or the CCI) in addition to battles fought through the appellate tribunal andcourts, and mandated changes enforced in companies’ operations.

There are concerns about the penalties imposed by the Commission, the effectiveness of thecompetition-compliance programs of Indian and multi-national companies in the country andthe lack of general awareness of competition laws among Indian companies.

In light of these evolving trends, we have conducted a survey to elicit the views of leadingcompetition law jurists and practitioners in India and abroad on the areas mentioned above aswell as about competition economics, e-Discovery, dawn raids, competition risk management,leniency, the role of trade associations, etc., vis-à-vis practice of competition law in India. Weare pleased to share the ndings of our study in this report.

We would like to express our appreciation of the people and organizations that contributed to

our research. Our report would not have had the same value without their support and that ofall the others who made the survey successful.

We hope you nd this report relevant and insightful.

Arpinder Singh Partner and National LeaderFraud Investigation & Dispute ServicesErnst & Young LLP




Executive summary• Rise in complaints led to CCI: Although relatively young in terms of its life span, the CCI has

received more than 500 complaints alleging violations of the Competition Act 2002 so far. Theserelate to “anti-competitive” agreements and organizations abusing their dominant position indomains as diverse as stock exchanges, travel, real estate, pharmaceuticals, mining, technologyand entertainment in the private and public sectors. The number of complaints led is increasingexponentially.

• Low awareness of need to comply with Competition Law among Indian corporates: EY’s surveyindicates that more than 80% of Indian enterprises are unaware about Competition Law, the effectit seeks to achieve and the likely consequences of contravening it. In the case of multi-nationalcorporations (MNC’s), most of them are aware about the law, and have adopted mechanisims tocomply with its mandates. Inadequate programs and training are conducted by Indian corporateorganizations on the law.

• Dawn raids — a reality this year: Under the Competition Act, the Director General — Investigations(DG), the investigating authority of the Commission in India, is empowered to conduct searches

and seizures. There is a general perception in the market that industry may see many more dawnraids in the coming year. Accordingly, the need for e-Discovery will increase to enable examinationof electronic records in such investigations and subsequent disputes.

• Unstructured and widespread data hindering economic market analyses: Our survey indicatesthat there is inadequate data available for conducting clear and viable economic analyses in anti-trust situations. There is a huge demand for ef cient data management for effective analyses ofthe market.

• Penalty guidelines —need of the hour and personal liability: The Commission has leviedpenalties, penalizing individuals for their role in the anti-competitive conduct of Indian companies.In many cases, it has not provided reasons for imposing different levels of penalties. In morethan 90% of the cases, the enterprises have appealed before the Competition AppellateTribunal (COMPAT).

• Lukewarm response to leniency applications: So far, only two leniency applications havebeen led before the CCI. Our survey indicates that companies are still adopting the wait andwatch approach and are not opting for leniency, in contrast with what happens in some mature

jurisdictions.

• Concerns on data-sharing at Trade Association meetings: Our report indicates that tradeassociations constitute the collective voice of the industry and need to be educated oncompetition law. There is a perception in the market that trade associations often play animportant role in various possible anti-competitive activities. They should not ask for or sharedata that can be used to abuse their position or act in an anti-competitive manner.




Competition Law in India

The rst competition law in India was the Monopolies andRestrictive Trade Practices Act of 1969. This was based onthe command and control economic architecture prevalentat that time. It was a direct instrument for moderating thegrowth of big business and had no provision for regulation ofcombinations and to impose nes for violation of the law.

To introduce the post-liberalisation philosophy of promotingcompetition rather than curbing monopolies, The CompetitionAct (Competition Act) was passed in 2002. In 2009, theCommission was established under the Act as an autonomousbody with a Chairperson and six members. Furthermore, anappellate body, COMPAT, was set up in 2009, with the nalappeal lying with the Supreme Court of India.

Salient features of competition law in India:

• Ban anti-competitive agreements

• Prohibit enterprises from abusing theirdominant positions

• Regulate combinations (acquisitions, andacquisition of control and mergers) that haveor are likely to have an adverse effect oncompetition in India

Operations under the Competition Act

It has been more than ve years since provisions relatingto anti-competitive behavior and companies abusing theirdominant position came into effect. Mergers and acquisitionshave been operational for about three years. Thoughrelatively young terms of its life span, the CCI has receivedmore than 500 complaints alleging violations of Sections 3(anti-competitive behavior) and 4 (abuse of dominance in themarket) of the Act relating to anti-competitive agreements and

abuse of dominance in domains as diverse as stock exchanges,travel, real estate, pharmaceuticals, mining, technology andentertainment in the public and private sectors.

While administering the Competition Act, the CCI has imposedsevere penalties on various enterprises, the most notableof these being its penalty ofINR17.73 billion on Coal India;INR3.17 billion on United Phosphorus, Excel Crop Care andSandhya Organics; INR63 billion on cement companies in thecement cartel case; and INR6.3 billion against one of the largestreal estate players in India and INR550 million against one ofthe largest stock exchanges in India, in abuse of dominancecases (upheld by the COMPAT). The Commission has also

received some leniency applications for reduced penalties in acouple of cartel cases. With regard to mergers and acquisitions,around 200 proposals have been decided so far.

“There are lots of hopes and expectation from theCCI. From here onwards, it can either become awell-respected regulator of the country or become adefunct organisation like MRTPC.”

Rahul Singh

Research Associate, University of Oxford andAssistant Professor of Law & Director (Law),Centre for Competition and Regulation,

National Law School of India University, Bangalore




Particulars ofinformation led

2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15(until Aug’14) Total

Information led by privateparties

32 71 89 86 90 55 423

Suo moto cognizance byCCI

0 5 0 6 6 4 21

Matters referred byCentral/State Government

0 0 4 2 7 7 20

Matters referred from theMRTPC

50 0 0 0 0 0 50

Total 82 76 93 94 103 66 514*

Anti-competitive activity 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 (tillAugust) Total

Cartel 1 13 3 1 2 20

Bid rigging - 1 3 2 1 7

Anti-competitive agreements/arrangements

* 6 12 10 3 31

Abuse of dominant position 2 9 7 22 9 49

Combination - - - - - -

Total^ 3 29 25 35 15 107

*Total information led and available on the CCI website www.cci.gov.in

^Source: www.cci.gov.in

Chart 2: Cases referred by CCI for Investigation and inquiry to the Director General

Chart 1: Information led with the CCI

“For the year 2014, competition law jurisprudenceis going to develop in two key areas, rst, industry

speci c things will emerge speci cally in telecomsector and second issues concerning intellectualproperty rights vis-à-vis competition lawwill emerge.”

Balbir SinghPartner, DSK Legal




Cases referred by International Antitrust Authorities for Investigation areprovided below:

Chart 3: US Department of Justice —Antitrust Division & Other Federal Agencies(investigation cases)

Anti-competitive activity 2010 2011 2012 2013 TotalSherman Act Section 1— restraint on trade 46 47 31 25 149

Sherman Act Section 2 — monopoly 2 2 2 2 8

Others* 7 3 1 0 11

Total 55 52 34 27 168

* This category includes investigations of potential violations of the Clayton Antitrust Act, 1914, and the Robinson-Patman Act, 1936, among other statutes.

Anti-competitive activity 2010 2011 2012 2013 TotalTotal number of investigations of cases about whichthe European Commission has been informed*

169 163 112 121 565

Cases in which an envisaged decision has beensubmitted by the National Competition Authority(NCA) during the period indicated**

94 88 91 60 333

Total 263 251 203 181 898

*Investigations conducted on cases by the NCA or the Commission

** Cases reaching the envisaged “decision” stage — only submissions from the NCA under Article 11(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on

implementation of its rules on competition, laid down in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

Chart 4: European Competition Commission (investigations)

YearNumber of mergers led beforeUS Antitrust Authorities — DoJand Federal Trade Commission

Number of mergers ledbefore European Competition

Commission

Number of combinations ledbefore Australian Competition

and Consumer Commission2010 1166 274 118

2011 1450 309 87

2012 1429 283 62

2013 1326 277 53

Total 5371 1143 320




Chart 5: Cases before COMPAT“The regulatory trends revealed by thissurvey re ect what we have seen moregenerally around Europe. In particular,incentives for market participants to reportaberrant conduct, an increasingly proactiveand sophisticated regulatory approachand the severity of penalties imposed oncorporates and individuals means that

directors and other corporate of cers inmarket sensitive positions ignore competitionregulations at their peril. In this context, it issurprising and concerning that an estimated80% of India enterprises appear to be underinformed and hence under prepared in thisimportant area of compliance.”

Richard IndgePartner,

Fraud Investigation & Dispute Services,Ernst & Young, London

Source: CCI Annual Reports for the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014

*11 appeals pending at end of 2011

** 14 appeals pending at end of 2012

***118 appeals pending at the end of 2013

Appeals fled withCOMPAT

CCI orders upheld byCOMPAT/Appeal

disallowed

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014(till October)

17

1

36

142

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014(till October)

NA

8*0

7**21***

60




Emerging trends in India

Need to sensitize organizationson importance of complying withCompetition LawEY’s survey indicates that more than 80% of Indian enterprisesare unaware of Competition Law, what it seeks to achieve andlikely consequences of their contravening it.

The survey also reveals that most multi-national corporations

(MNC’s) in India are aware of the country’s Competition Law andhave adopted mechanisms to comply with it.

Most MNCs use the compliance frameworks of their parentcompanies abroad. They have “Indianized” and tailored these tocomply with India’s Competition Law.

Almost 70% of the respondents believed that Indian enterprisesdo not have in place control mechanisms and their documents(vendor contracts, supply and distribution agreements, etc.) arenot veri ed at the grass-root level for their compliance with theregulations of Competition Law. There is therefore an urgentneed to train the employees of such organizations and instill inthem the importance of complying with the mandates of the Law.

The nes levied by the CCI and the advocacy measures takenby it indicate the immediate need for companies to review theirexisting business practices for compliance under the Act.

At various forums and meetings, the Commission has beenasking companies to put in place compliance programs in orderto ensure that their business practices do not violate the Law’sregulations.

According to the CCI, the creation of a compliance system willenable organizations to detect violations early and help themtake the requisite preventive steps.

Incentivizing existent compliance programsand practices

Creation of such a system by the CCI will help companies avoidnes or mitigate their severity, pre-empt the possibility of their

concluding potentially void agreements, and reduce the costsand negative effects of litigation and regulatory intervention.




Elements of a Competition compliance program

A well-formulated and streamlined compliance program shouldaddress the business realities faced by enterprises.

Advantages of maintaining a competitioncompliance program

Broadly, a competition compliance program offers the followingadvantages:

• It helps to reduce costs and the negative aspects oflitigation and connected matters.

• It enables enterprises to detect potential violations (if any)at an early stage and take remedial measures, and thereby

provides them with a competitive advantage.• It helps companies enhance their reputation and build

goodwill.

• It inculcates a culture of compliance throughoutorganizations.

• It realizes the severity of the punishment that may bemeted out for violation and that enterprises contraveningthe provisions of the Act may suffer damage to theirreputation, thereby nulli ng years of careful marketing andbrand development.

“Compliance Programmes will have to becustom-made for each enterprise and an “offthe shelf’ programme is very unlikely to servethe purpose and should be modelled on thecompetition law jurisprudence of India.”

Karan S. ChandhiokPartner, Chandhiok & Associates

“A Compliance Programme should beimplemented to ensure that it is of practicaluse on a day-to-day basis. A sophisticated legaltreatise may not be the appropriate documentfor the employees who look after the work on aday to day basis and may not be legally trained.”

Vyapak DesaiPartner, Nishith Desai & Associates




Major costs of non-compliance

While having compliance programs in place may be bene cialfor organizations, non-compliance, if detected, may prove to becostly for them. The CCI is invested with the power to conductinvestigations and dawn raids, and take decisions. Therefore,the possibility of their being convicted is high for non-compliantenterprises. The consequent results may be one or more of thefollowing:

• Heavy nes for non-compliance: In the case of anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance, a 10%

ne levied on the company’s average turnover for thepreceding 3 years of violation. In the case of a cartel, thepenalty can be up to three times of its pro t for each yearof its violation of regulations or 10% of its turnover foreach year of its violation, whichever is higher. The CCI canalso divide an enterprise for abuse of dominance.

• Parties approaching the COMPAT for compensation mayneed to deposit large amounts, depending on the type ofviolation.

• It could include legal and other costs involved in handling

cases of infringement of Competition Law.

“We would commend a Competition Complianceprogramme… We would also suggest a high-levelCompetition Compliance Committee to drive theagenda in your organizations. Last, but by nomeans least, the compliance programme shouldreceive not only your attention but should also beput up for periodic review by the Board of Directors.On our part, we are thinking of requesting SEBI toinclude effective competition compliance in theirlisting guidelines under Clause 49.

Mr. Ashok Chawla Chairperson, Competition Commission of India,

Roundtable on “Competition Compliance forGood Corporate Governance” - Welcome Address,

January 24, 2013

e-Discovery in CompetitionLaw-related investigationsMore than 90% of information is stored in the form ofelectronic documents today. Currently, the amount ofelectronically stored information is at an all-time high. It isevident that business is increasingly relying on electronicdocuments. However, while organizations have years ofexperience in formulating and implementing strategiesto manage paper documents, management of electronicdocuments is a relatively modern phenomenon.

of the respondents stated thatthe use of e-discovery toolswill be useful in Competition-related cases and disputes.90%

“Enterprises that have entered into agreementsor are in the process of negotiating agreements,especially agreements with competitors, shouldtake precautions to ensure that they remain onthe correct side of law.”

Samir R. GandhiPartner, AZB & Partners




“In the event the amendment in the CompetitionAct is passed, the investigation process willbecome very challenging for the CCI andthe of ce of the DG, especially in relation toprocedural aspects of law. e-Discovery servicesmay also witness a urry of activity in relation tocollection of primary and secondary evidences.”

Manas Kumar Chaudhri Partner, Khaitan & Co.

“Under the Competition Act, the CCI has all thepowers to conduct search and seizures (dawnraids). The amendment to the Competition Act isnot an answer. It is really up to the will, approachand the courage of the CCI to conduct the dawnraid operations and exercise its powers under theCompetition Act.”

Dushyant A. DaveSenior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

According to 90% of the respondents, there is a need fororganizations to use e-Discovery solutions to examine theirelectronic records in anti-competitive cases (e.g., in response torequests from the Commission or to search for anti-competitiveactivity to help them formulate leniency applications).

e-Discovery technology enables enterprises ef ciently andcost-effectively assess the breadth of their data, identifyresponsive information and cull non-responsive ElectronicallyStored Information (ESI), and thereby reduce the cost and timerequired for review.

Enterprises from all industries are appreciating the needfor them to maintain strong record- management systems.e-Discovery services are helpful when an adjudicating authorityis in the process of evaluating evidence and passing orders.Although e-Discovery services are at a nascent stage in India,they are becoming popular, particularly due to the rise ofcorporate litigation.

There is a need for specialist agencies to dig out relevant datato respond to the investigation questionnaire circulated by the

DG — Investigations.

After the DG circulating the investigation questionnaire to theentity, the entities require services to use techniques suchas ltering of keywords, clustering of concepts, analyses ofdomains and de-duplication. This can signi cantly shrink thesize of a responsive data set.

Dawn raid: a reality this yearThe shock is always enormous when a competition authorityraids companies anywhere in the world. Under the CompetitionAct, the DG is empowered to conduct searches and seizures.Pursuant to these provisions, the DG needs to procure an orderfrom the CMM, Delhi, to undertake a search and/or seizure.As on date, there has been no case before the CCI whereany search and seizure order has been obtained by the DG.Therefore, the effectiveness of the existing provisionis untested.

The respondents were asked about the ef ciency of existinglegal provisions relating to the DG’s power to search andmake seizures. They were also questioned on the proposedamendment in the Competition Act, whereby the chairperson ofthe CCI will be able to pass an order to the DG to conduct dawnraids.

According to 75% of the respondents, dawn raids will increasethe level of compliance to a great extent.




Need for empirical survey and analysis

It is important for companies to take a decision on how theywill present data in ways that best re ect their business andoperational structures.

An effort should be made to systematize relevant data from theCompetition point of view to facilitate assessment of exposureto anti-competitive practices and resultant risks.

Gathering, reviewing and benchmarking data to support anobjective evaluation of whether a company’s antitrust program

is appropriate to prevent, detect and respond to anti-trustviolations is essential.

Accurate data can be used to measure whether a company’santi-trust compliance program processes and related controlsare appropriately designed and are being applied consistentlyand adequately throughout its operations. It can be used toevaluate the effectiveness of these controls and improve themwhere required.

Minimal qualitative data is generally maintained by companies.This is particularly true in the unorganized sector. Authenticityof data is questionable in this sector, and therefore, the optionof relying on it is dubious.

“Enterprises should be encouraged to proactivelymaintain accurate records of data. The CCI shouldbe more pro-active in asking for data/ studies fromthe parties involved so as to form a sound analysison a case to case basis.”

Ramji Srinivas Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

“There should be creation of several statecompetition commissions for spreading theawareness of bene ts of competition lawsand for helping the local traders and peopleunderstand (at the grass root level) about theimpact and reach of competition law.”

R. PrasadFormer Member,

Competition Commission of India

Unstructured and widespread data hindering economic analysesAccording to 75% of the respondents, there is nocomprehensive data available for conducting a clearand viable economic analysis in an anti-trust situationdue to the lack of qualitative data available for reasonedeconomic analyses.

According to 25% of the respondents, the problem arisesdue to the lack of qualitative data available for reasonedeconomic analyses.

Merger cases referred to the competition authorities are mentioned below:

2011

15 96

2012

52

2013

35

2014(till October)

totalcombination lings

198No. ofcombination lings

Chart 6: Pre-merger combination lings before CCI




“It was held that being multi-product companies,only the ‘relevant turnover’ ought to be consideredwhile imposing the penalty i.e. the turnovergenerated from the product under investigation,rather than the overall turnover of the enterprise. “

Rahul Goel Partner, Dhir & Dhir

“Since the penalties imposed by the CCI are veryhuge, it will be prudent to have something likeinformal guidance mechanism to understand or takea view of CCI about an activity on which could becategorised as an anti-competitive activity.”

Shashivansh BahadurPartner, Dua Associates

Penalty guidelines — need ofthe hourPenal provisions under the Competition Act are fundamentalfor enforcement of the law. They are essential for deterringacts prohibited by the law. The issue, “Can a penalty be solarge as to endanger the very existence of a company?”, wasrepeatedly highlighted by all the respondents during our survey.

Penalties imposed under the Competition Act on enterprisesare typically nancial in nature. In some cases, the CCI imposespenalties on some senior of cials in enterprises.

So far, penalties have been imposed by the CCI, but in mostof the cases (more than 90%), enterprises have not paid the

nes levied and have appealed to the COMPAT. Therefore, theeffect of the penalty is yet to be gauged. However, the COMPAThas upheld the decision of the CCI on imposition of a penaltyof INR6.3 billion against one of the largest real estate playersin India and INR550 million against one of the largest stockexchanges in India. Both have appealed to the Supreme Court.

Method of calculating penalties and the needfor guidelines on penalties

So far, the Commission has not been inconsistent in levyingpenalties. For example, in the cement cartel case, it imposeda penalty amounting to 0.5% of the pro t made by cartelizingcement companies, of 5% of its average turnover in the NSEcase, of 7% in the DLF case and of 6% of its average turnover inthe BCCI case. In the Assam Drugs Dealers Association case, itimposed a penalty at the maximum rate of 10% of its averageturnover. In the Bengal Chemist and Druggist Association case,the penalty imposed was 10% of its average turnover for theAssociation and its of cer bearers and of 7% for its Executive

Committee members. The Commission has not provided reasonsfor levying different levels of penalties and most of these havebeen appealed against to the COMPAT on these grounds.

Relevant turnover

In a recent appeal against the decision of the CCI in theAluminium Phosphide Tablet case , the COMPAT, by its decisionof 29 October 2013, introduced the concept of “relevantturnover” in Indian Competition Law jurisprudence.

The critical issue in the appeal was that of calculation andimposition of penalties. The COMPAT reiterated the doctrine ofproportionality while imposing penalties, emphasizing that theCCI must not only give reasons while imposing these, but mustalso consider all relevant factors, including the nancial healthof a company and the likelihood of it being forced to closedown on account of the harsh penalty. However, the matter issub-judice before the Supreme Court at present. It is importantto see how the Supreme Court interprets the word “turnover”under the Competition Act.

Chart 7: Cases in which penalties were imposed

20112010

3

6.86

-

-

12

72.162012

3

18.322013

10

26.652014

(till October)

No. of cases

Amount of penalty (in billion)

28Total cases

124Total amount ofpenalty




Lukewarm response to LeniencyapplicationsThe Leniency program is used by the Competition authorities asa key tool to detect infringements by cartels by providing totalimmunity from nes or less than full immunity to participants incartels in return for their informing Competition authority aboutthe existence of the cartel.

The Competition Act and the Competition Commission ofIndia (Lesser Penalty) Regulations 2009 (Lesser PenaltyRegulations) has set out the Leniency policy. Under LesserPenalty Regulations, Leniency provisions cover undertakings(or persons) that have been members of a cartel and are willingto provide information to the Commission and cooperatewith it in terminating the cartel’s activities. Under the Act,cartel activities include agreements of any kind entered byundertakings and/or associations of undertakings, which areengaged in identical or similar trade of goods or provision ofservices.

The respondents were asked about the ef ciency of existinglegal provisions relating to the Leniency policy in theCompetition Act. According to 80%, the CCI needs to instil morecon dence in corporate organizations to elicit more leniencyapplications.

According to 90% of the respondents, industry is concernedabout issues relating to con dentiality and the discretionarypower of the CCI.

According to 70% of the respondents, there is a problem withthe manner in which penalty provisions are drafted underthe Competition Act, and there is a lack to clear guidelines/procedures for parties approaching the CCI for leniency.

“The leniency application process is very porousand will have to be monitored carefully for properenforcement. The problem lies in the way thelesser penalty provisions are worded. The provisionempowers the Commission to impose lesser penaltyif it ‘may’ deem t, in contrast to the US anti-trustprovisions, which mandates the Department ofJustice to necessarily (the word used in the US lawsis ‘shall’) grant the immunity from penalties.”

Amitabh KumarPartner, JSA




Concerns on data-sharing at TradeAssociation meetingsTrade associations are unique forums at which competitorsfrom the same industry or sector meet to discuss issues ofcommon interest, nd common solutions and further theircommon commercial/professional interests. Their activitieshave, however, been subject to close scrutiny by the CCI.

Despite their many pro-competitive aspects, trade associationscontinue to be cautious about stepping outside the boundariesmandated by the Competition Law. This is because byde nition, trade associations offer opportunities for repeatedcontact between direct competitors and involve cooperationamong them in the same trade. Casual discussions of prices,quantities, customers, territories and market shares, terms ofsales, advertising restrictions and future business strategies,can lead to agreements or an informal understanding. Thiscould easily spill over into illegal coordination, so called

cartelization or formation of anti-competitive agreements.

The respondents were asked about the role of the trade association in cartelcases. All of them (100%) felt that there is no doubt that trade associations addvalue to the industries/sectors in which they operate, but they may also facilitateanti-competitive conduct — inadvertently or deliberately.

100%

All the respondents (100%) suggested that the Commission should encourageall associations and their members to put in place Competition-complianceprograms, and that associations can also try to develop guidelines on best

practices for their members in order to create awareness of acceptable andunacceptable behavior under the Act.

100%

According to 80% of the respondents, they are the collective voice of industry andneed to be educated on the nuances of the Competition Law. Trade associations arenot only at risk of violating the Law, but can also bene t from it. They need to beaware of how they can take advantage of opportunities offered by the Act to bene tthe industry. They can identify marketplace-related issues and can often help toresolve these by liaising between the CCI and industry. They may draw the attention

of the Commission to anti-competitive practices emanating from government laws/policies and urge it to take up this issue with the Government as part of its advocacy.

80%




MethodologyFor this study, EY conducted in-depthinterviews with former members of theCCI, senior advocates, leading lawyersand senior legal professionals for theirviews on competition laws in India.




Contacts

EY of cesAhmedabad2 nd oor, Shivalik IshaanNear C.N. VidhyalayaAmbawadiAhmedabad - 380 015Tel: + 91 79 6608 3800Fax: + 91 79 6608 3900

Bengaluru6 th , 12 th & 13 th oor“UB City”, Canberra BlockNo.24 Vittal Mallya RoadBengaluru - 560 001Tel: + 91 80 4027 5000

+ 91 80 6727 5000Fax: + 91 80 2210 6000 (12 th oor)

Fax: + 91 80 2224 0695 (13 th oor)

1st Floor, Prestige EmeraldNo. 4, Madras Bank RoadLavelle Road JunctionBengaluru - 560 001Tel: + 91 80 6727 5000Fax: + 91 80 2222 4112

Chandigarh1 st Floor, SCO: 166-167Sector 9-C, Madhya MargChandigarh - 160 009Tel: + 91 172 671 7800

Fax: + 91 172 671 7888

Arpinder SinghPartner and National LeaderDirect: +91 22 6192 0160Email: [email protected]

Sandeep BaldavaPartnerDirect: +91 40 6736 2121Email: [email protected]

Vivek AggarwalPartnerDirect: +91 12 4464 4551

Email: [email protected]

ChennaiTidel Park, 6 th & 7th FloorA Block (Module 601,701-702)No.4, Rajiv Gandhi Salai,Taramani Chennai - 600113Tel: + 91 44 6654 8100Fax: + 91 44 2254 0120

HyderabadOval Of ce, 18, iLabs CentreHitech City, MadhapurHyderabad - 500081Tel: + 91 40 6736 2000Fax: + 91 40 6736 2200

Kochi

9 th Floor, ABAD NucleusNH-49, Maradu POKochi - 682304Tel: + 91 484 304 4000Fax: + 91 484 270 5393

Kolkata22 Camac Street3 rd oor, Block ‘C’Kolkata - 700 016Tel: + 91 33 6615 3400Fax: + 91 33 2281 7750

Mukul ShrivastavaPartnerDirect: +91 22 6192 2777Email: [email protected]

Anurag KashyapPartnerDirect: +91 22 6192 0373Email: [email protected]

Anil KonaPartnerDirect: +91 80 6727 5500


Mumbai14 th Floor, The Ruby29 Senapati Bapat MargDadar (W), Mumbai - 400028Tel: +91 22 6192 0000Fax: +91 22 6192 1000

5 th Floor, Block B-2Nirlon Knowledge ParkOff. Western Express HighwayGoregaon (E)Mumbai - 400 063Tel: + 91 22 6192 0000Fax: + 91 22 6192 3000

NCR

Golf View Corporate Tower BNear DLF Golf CourseSector 42Gurgaon - 122002Tel: + 91 124 464 4000Fax: + 91 124 464 4050

10 th Floor, Tower D&ECyber Green, DLF Phase-3,Gurgaon 12202 HaryanaTel: + 91 124 671 4400

Rajiv JoshiPartnerDirect: +91 22 6192 1569Email: [email protected]

Yogen VaidyaPartnerDirect: +91 22 6192 2264Email: [email protected]

Tarun MathurManagerDirect: +91 22 6192 1094


6 th oor, HT House18-20 Kasturba Gandhi MargNew Delhi - 110 001Tel: + 91 11 4363 3000Fax: + 91 11 4363 3200

4 th & 5th Floor, Plot No 2B,Tower 2, Sector 126,NOIDA 201 304Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.IndiaTel: + 91 120 671 7000Fax: + 91 120 671 7171

PuneC-401, 4 th oor

Panchshil Tech ParkYerwada(Near Don Bosco School)Pune - 411 006Tel: + 91 20 6603 6000Fax: + 91 20 6601 5900



EY refers to the global organization, and/or one or more of theindependent member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited

Ernst & Young LLPEY | Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory

About EYEY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction andadvisory services. The insights and quality services wedeliver help build trust and confidence in the capitalmarkets and in economies the world over. We developoutstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promisesto all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a criticalrole in building a better working world for our people, for

our clients and for our communities.EY refers to the global organization, and may refer toone or more, of the member firms of Ernst & YoungGlobal Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity.Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited byguarantee, does not provide services to clients. For moreinformation about our organization, please visit ey.com.

Ernst & Young LLP is one of the Indian client serving member firms ofEYGM Limited. For more information about our organization, please visitwww.ey.com/in.

Ernst & Young LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership, registered under theLimited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 in India, having its registered officeat 22 Camac Street, 3rd Floor, Block C, Kolkata - 700016

© 2014 Ernst & Young LLP. Published in India.All Rights Reserved.

EYIN1411-122

ED None

This publication contains information in summary form and is thereforeintended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitutefor detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. NeitherErnst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Youngorganization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to anyperson acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in thispublication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to theappropriate advisor.

YTG

calibrating the pulse of competition law in india.pdf

Documents