Newsletter on Indonesian competition law and policy

www.kppu.go.id

kompetisiavol. 05/2010

Law Enforcement

CompetitionAdvocacy

International

Bid Rigging in the Procurement of Medicine and Health Supplies in TangerangDistrict Health Office

The signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the KPPU andPPATK (Center for Financial Transaction Reporting and Analysis)

Report on the 2nd AEGC Workshop on Developing Handbook on CompetitionPolicy and Law

kompetisia vol 05/20102

Table ofContents

Law EnforcementBid Rigging in the Procurement ofMedicine and Health Supplies inTangerang District Health Office

Bid Rigging in the Duplication andShipping of Modules for Open JuniorHigh School at the Ministry of NationalEducation

Bid Rigging in the Procurement ofPipes and Accesories in BengkuluProvince

3

4

Competition AdvocacyThe signing of the Memorandum ofUnderstanding between the KPPU andPPATK (Center for FinancialTransaction Reporting and Analysis)

Urgency for the Establishment of Lawin Regulating the Retail Industry

The Hearing between the KPPU and theCentral Bureau of Statistics

The meeting between the KPPU and thePolice of the Republic of Indonesia

The meeting between the KPPU and theMinistry of Finance of the Republic ofIndonesia

6

7

7

8

8

InternationalReport on the 2nd AEGC Workshop onDeveloping Handbook on CompetitionPolicy and Law

Report on The 9th InternationalCompetition Netwotk AnnualConference

Report on OECD - Korea Policy CentreRegional Antitrust Workshop

9

10

11

http://www.hariyasasanjaya.com

kompetisia vol 05/2010 3

http://p

ropert

i.kom

pas.c

om

LawEnforcement

Bid Rigging in the Procurement of Medicine andHealth Supplies in Tangerang District Health Office

The Commission for the Supervision ofBusiness Competition (the KPPU) decided thatthree business actors and the TenderCommittee shall be the Reported Parties inCase Number: 28/KPPU-L/2009 regarding analleged violation of Article 22 on Bid Rigging ofLaw No.5 of 1999 which occurred in theimplementation of Tender for the Procurement ofMedicines and Health Supplies in TangerangDistrict Health Office. The 3 business actors arePT Kimia Farma Trading & Distribution - SerangBranch, PT Indofarma Global Medika - JakartaBranch, and PT Lucas Djaja.

Pursuant to the investigation results conductedby the KPPU’s Investigation Team, a number offacts were obtained in which the TenderCommittee applied the requirements formedicine produced by State-owned Enterprises(BUMN) in Work Plan and Terms (RencanaKerja dan Syarat/RKS) of the Tender whichindirectly have given rise to barriers against thenon-SoE manufacturers to participate in themedicine procurement at the Tangerang DistrictHealth Office.

However, the Commission Council is of opinionthat these requirements are proposed in order toobtain the medicine with standards, quality,distribution and more stable storage. The

Commission Council also found differences inoffering prices for several items of medicine fromthe same manufacturers. But the CommissionAssembly considers that this distinction is not anattempt to regulate prices, but purely it isbecause of the price difference fixed by themanufacturers given to each tender bidder,where this is indeed the case of thesemanufacturers. Nevertheless, the CommissionAssembly is also of opinion that the TenderCommittee has violated the applicable tenderprovisions by undertaking a merit-pointevaluation to the experience of companies asbidders.

Based on such evidence and facts, the KPPU’sCommission Assembly declared that all theReported Parties were not proven to haveviolated Article 22 of Law No.5 Year 1999concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practicesand Unfair Business Competition. However, theC o m m i s s i o n A s s e m b l y s u b m i t t e drecommendations to the Head of TangerangDistrict Health Agency to admonish the TenderCommittee for not carrying out the tenderprocess in accordance with Presidential DecreeNo.80 of 2003 and for undertaking efficiency inthe procurement of generic medicine. Theverdict was read in the Commission AssemblyMeeting open to the public on 14thApril 2010.

http://w

ww

.hariyasasanja

ya.c

om

kompetisia vol 05/20104

LawEnforcement

Bid Rigging in the Duplicationand Shipping of Modules forOpen Junior High School at theMinistry of National Education

On 13 April 2010, the Commission for theSupervision of Business Competition (theKPPU) read the verdict of Case No.27/KPPI-L/2009 regarding an alleged violation of Article22 on Bid Rigging of Law No. 5 Year 1999 whichoccurred in the implementation of the Tender forDuplication and Shipping of Modules for OpenJunior High School in Directorate of SecondarySchool Ministry of Education (TenderPenggandaan dan Pengiriman Modul SMPTerbuka di Direktorat Pembinaan SekolahMenengah Pertama - Departemen PendidikanNasional). In this case, the KPPU confirmed thatall the Reported Parties comprising 14 businessactors and the Tender Committee were provenlegally and convincingly to have violated theArticle 22.

This case began from a report received by theKPPU related to an alleged Bid Rigging in theDuplication and Shipping of Modules for OpenJunior High School in Directorate of SecondarySchool Ministry of Education (TenderPenggandaan dan Pengiriman Modul SMPTerbuka di Direktorat Pembinaan SekolahMenengah Pertama - Departemen PendidikanNasional). This Tender itself was divided intoseveral packages. Based on the examinationconducted by the KPPU’s Investigation Team,the Commission Assembly concluded that therewere some tender conspiracies, namely: Four(4) companies committed a horizontal bidrigging to arrange and or select PT PratasejatiMandiri as the tender winner of Package I(Tender for Mathematics Subject for Grade VIISemesters 1 and 2); Two (2) companiesconspired to arrange the PT NusantaralestariCeriapratama to be the tender winner ofPackage II (Tender for Natural Sciences Subjectfor Grade VII Semesters 1 and 2); Four (4)

companies conspired to arrange CV StandarGrafika to be the tender winner of Package III(Tender for Social Sciences Subject for GradeVII, Semesters 1 and 2); and Four (4) companiesconspired to arrange PT Surya Usaha Ningtiasas the tender winner of Package IV (Tender forNatural Sciences Subject for Grade VIII,Semesters 1 and 2).

Furthermore, the Commission Assembly alsoevaluated that the Tender Committee hadcreated a high entry barrier for companies withpotentials to participate in the tender, becausethe Assembly published an undisclosed tenderannouncement, costly registration fees andburdensome registration requirements. TheTender Committee also committed a negligenceby not noticing the similarity of tenderdocuments for the Reported Parties whichprovided opportunities for the Reported Partiesto conspire and make arrangements for therespective winner of each package.

Because of this bid rigging, the CommissionAssembly came to a decision that all of theReported Parties (15 Reported Parties) wereevidently violated Article 22 of Law No.5 Year1999, and applied a fine amounting to Rp.25million to each tender winner in each package.Meanwhile, each of other business actorsinvolved in the bid rigging was charged a fineamounting to Rp.10 million, and the TenderCommittee was imposed a fine of Rp.500,000.The Commission Assembly also gaverecommendation to the Tender Committeesuperiors to exert administrative sanctions inaccordance with applicable regulations, andprovided the Minister of National Education withan advice to issue instructions to the wholeMinistry of National Education to conduct anytender in accordance with Presidential DecreeNo.80 Year 2003 and pursuant to the principlesof fair business competition.

htt

p:/

/ltp

s.u

ad.a

c.id

kompetisia vol 05/2010 5

LawEnforcement

Bid Rigging in the Procurement of Pipes andAccesories in Bengkulu Province

8 Reported Parties consisting of 7 businessactors and the Tender Committee were provenlegally and convincingly to have violated Article22 of Act No.5 of 1999 regarding Bid Rigging.The Decision of Case No.26/KPPU-L/2009 wasread by the Commission Assembly held on 7April 2010. This case stemed from a report fromcommunity about an alleged bid rigging for theProcurement of Pipes and Accessoris in thePublic Works Regional Office of Bengkulu. In itsdecision, the KPPU set the amounts of fines andsanctions which are different to each ReportedParty in compliance with the roles andinvolvements of each party in such bid rigging.

This tender was divided into 4 packages: apackage in Bengkulu Municipality, a package inNorth Bengkulu District, a package inKepahiang District and a package in SouthBengkulu District, with a total ceiling value ofmore than Rp.7 Billion. Through a series ofexamination processes conducted by theInvestigation Team of the KPPU of the Republicof Indonesia, a fact was found that there are 3companies, facilitated by the Tender Committee,that have been working together to arrangeand/or select PT Nindya Citra Hutama to be thetender winner on South Bengkulu package. Thisis evidenced by the similarities in the requestdocuments as well as the family relationshipamong the company’s owners. Then, there are 4

other companies that have also entered intocooperations to arrange in order that 3companies out of such 4 companies should bethe winners in 3 other tender packages (CVHutama Bhakti as the winner of the package inBengkulu Municipality, CV Karya Riski Utama asthe winner of the package in North BengkuluDistrict, and CV Grinvis as the winner of thepackage in the District Kepahiang District). Thisbid rigging was also facilitated by the TenderCommittee for allowing some similarities to be inthe data of the companies, and let the Director ofCV Karya Riski Mandiri sign the documents ofintegrity pact on behalf of 2 (two) companies atthe same time.

For such a mistake, the KPPU’s CommissionAssembly confirmed that PT Nindya CitraHutama should pay a fine amounting to Rp.75million, CV Hutama Bakti should pay a fineamounting to Rp.55 million, CV Grinvis shouldpay a fine amounting to Rp.100 million and CVKarya Riski Mandiri should pay a fine amountingto Rp.75 million. 3 Other Reported Parties areforbidden to follow the tender within the PublicWorks Office of Bengkulu Province for 1 (one)year since this decision has permanent legalforce. The Commission Assembly alsorecommended the immediate superior of thetender committee to exert administrativesanctions to the Tender Committee for having

http://w

b5.itr

adem

ark

et.com

kompetisia vol 05/20106

CompetitionAdvocacy

The signing of the Memorandum of Understanding betweenthe KPPU and PPATK (Center for Financial TransactionReporting and Analysis)The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)between the KPPU and PPATK (Center forFinancial Transact ion Report ing andAnalysis/CFTRA) was signed at the same timeas the 8th anniversary celebration of theestablishment of PPATK/CFTRA on 14th April2010 which was held in the PPATK building. Thesigning was made by the PPATK’s ChairmanYunus Hussein, and the KPPU’s ChairmanTresna P. Soemardi. The event was alsoattended by the Coordinating Minister forPol i t ical , Legal and Secur i ty Affa i rs(MenKoPolHukKam), the State Minister forStateApparatus Control (MenPAN), theAttorneyGeneral, the Indonesian Police Department(PolRI), the Governor of Bank Indonesia (BI)and attendants from some of other governmentagencies.The event began with remarks from the KPPU’sChairman explaining the KPPU’s roles as awatchdog for business activities conducted bybusiness actors in order that these businessactors will not be engaged in monopolisticpractices and or unfair business competition.Such supervision is very much required foreconomic development aimed at the realizationof public welfare based on Pancasila(Indonesian Five Basic Principles) and the 1945Constitution. Within the framework of such

KPPU’s duties, the KPPU needs strategicpartnerships with other institutions, in whichsuch partnerships were held throughMemorandums of Understanding (MoU). TheMoU between the KPPU and PPATK aims atimproving the effectiveness of efforts in theprevention and eradication of Criminal Case inMoney Laundering, and at increasing theeffectiveness of prevention and handling ofcases on monopolistic practices and or unfairbusiness competition.

The benefits of cooperation were also aimed atthe determination of efforts or concretemeasures in preventing and combating CriminalCase in Money Laundering and lawenforcement on the prohibition of monopolisticpractices and unfair business competition. Theforms of cooperation between the KPPU andPPATK (Center for Financial TransactionReporting and Analysis/CFTRA) wereundertaken through information exchange,formulation of legal rules and regulations,socialization, research, and education andtraining. It is expected that the cooperationsbetween the two institutions may providepositive values and increased performance andsuccess for the tasks and authorities carried outand had by the KPPU and PPATK (Center forFinancial Transact ion Report ing andAnalysis/CFTRA).

kompetisia vol 05/2010 7

CompetitionAdvocacy

Urgency for theEstablishment of Law inRegulating the RetailIndustry

On 31 March 2010, the KPPU issuedrecommendations and considerations for thegovernment pursuant to Letter No.43/K/III/2010related to business competition policy on theretail industry. In these recommendations andconsiderations, the KPPU appealed to theGovernment to immediately establish lawsgoverning the retail industry as an umbrella forregulations of implementation and supervisionof limitation for trading terms so that legal basesin the regulation of this industry may becomevery strong and thus give rise to the maximumpublic welfare.

As it is widely known that the KPPU alreadydecided two cases related to the imbalance ofbargaining positions between modern retailbusiness actors and their suppliers, namely thecase of PT Carrefour's Trading Terms (CaseNumber 02/KPPU-L/2005) and the case of AlfaAcquisition by PT Carrefour (Case Noumber

09/KPPU-L/2009). The emergence of thesecases is evidence of the ineffectiveness ofPresidential Regulation (PerPres) No.112 Year2007 and the Decree of the Minister of Trade No.53 Year 2008 which regulate the Arrangementand Development of Traditional Markets,Shopping Centers and Modern Stores/Shops,because these two cases may give rise to theimplementation of Trading Terms that areexploitative and burdensome against suppliers.Based on this fact, the KPPU argues that it isnecessary to apply Law-level regulations whichhave stronger effect and tougher sanctions.

The KPPU also considers that the regulation interms of an Act needs to regulate other aspectsof a retail problem, namely imbalancedcompetition between modern retail businessactors and traditional retail business actors,where the government is expected to makepolicies and direct intervention in terms ofzoning regulation, restrictions on open time, oreven limitation of number of outlets to beopened. With strong legal basis and authoritythrough the application of the Act, the retailarrangement would be more effective andprovide a guarantee for certainty of the sameopportunities for large-scale business actors,medium-scale business actors and small-scalebusiness actors as set forth inArticle 3 (b) of LawNo.5/999 regarding Purpose.

The Hearing between the KPPU and the CentralBureau of Statistics

On 27 April 2010, the KPPU had a hearing withthe Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS)Indonesia. The KPPU’s delegates were led byDidik Akhmadi as the Commissioner andreceived directly by Roesman Heriawan as theHead of the Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS).In this hearing, both institutions expressed theirappreciation in relation with cooperation andcoordination that had been already made inaccordance with their duties and authorities.

The hearing between the KPPU and the CentralBureau of Statistics (BPS) was expected tofurther optimize and strengthen an institutional

partnership between those two institutions,especially in the exchange of information for thebenefit of economic studies in flight industry orthe collection of statistics data in order to supportthe law enforcement process currentlyconducted by the KPPU.

Both the KPPU and the Central Bureau ofStatistics (BPS) understand fully that workcoordination between the two parties needs tobe improved in the future considering thestrategic role of each institution in thedevelopment of national economy.

http://m

ata

new

s.c

om

kompetisia vol 05/20108

The meeting between the KPPU and thePolice of the Republic of Indonesia

On 6 April 2010 the KPPU held a hearing withthe Police of the Republic of Indonesia at theheadquarters of Police of the Republic ofIndonesia, South Jakarta. In the hearing, theKPPU’s delegates were led by the KPPU’sChairman and received directly by the DeputyChief of Police of the Republic of Indonesia,accompanied by the leadership ranks of thePolice of the Republic of Indonesia.

The hearing was held in order to buildinstitutional relationships between the KPPUand the Police as institutions equally engaged inlaw enforcement, in which the KPPU is thecompetition law enforcing authority inIndonesia, while the Police of the Republic ofIndonesia is the public law-enforcing institutionin Indonesia. The meeting was also held in theframework of early assessment in an effort toestablish a cooperation between the KPPU andthe Police of the Republic of Indonesia inrelation to provision of assistance to the KPPUto take the Reported Parties, witnesses andexpert witnesses to court in the handling ofbusiness competition case conducted by the

KPPU, as well as cooperation in the effort tosocialize the values of business competition andhuman resource development. The importantvalues of cooperation between the KPPU andthe Police of the Republic of Indonesia are toestablish integrated competition justice systemwhich can guarantee law-enforcing certaintyand the strengthening of the KPPU’s decision asan effort to encourage the creation of fairbusiness competition climate in Indonesia, andto develop same visions and agreements inorder to promote the effectiveness of lawcompetition enforcement.

It is expected that the cooperation between theKPPU and the Police of the Republic ofIndonesia may build an effective law-enforcingnetwork, part icular ly competi t ion lawenforcement in Indonesia. The institutionalcooperation with the relevant agencies,particularly the Police of the Republic ofIndonesia, will be capable of giving rise tocoordination and effectiveness of competitionlaw enforcing performance that is orientated onreal community welfare.

The meeting between the KPPU and the Ministry ofFinance of the Republic of Indonesia

On 01 April 2010 the KPPU met with the Ministryof Finance (DepKeu) of the Republic ofIndonesia, particularly the Directorate Generalof Budget (DitJen Anggaran). In this meeting,the KPPU’s delegates were led by the KPPU’sVice-Chairman and received directly by theDirector-General of Budget in the Ministry of

Finance of Indonesia. The meeting wasconducted in order to enhance communicationsand cooperation between both institutions, andthe Ministry of Finance itself has been a strategicpartner in supporting the roles and functions ofthe KPPU’s institutional functions.

CompetitionAdvocacy

kompetisia vol 05/2010 9

International

Report on the 2nd AEGCWorkshop on Developing

Handbook on CompetitionPolicy and Law

As an effort to help raise the publicunderstanding among the ASEAN countriesregarding the importance of BusinessCompetition Law, and as a means to exchangeexperiences (best practices) and learning fromthe experience of business competitionagencies in other countries, the ASEAN ExpertsGroup on Competition (AEGC), in cooperationwith InWent (Capacity Building International,Germany), hosted the 2nd ASEAN ExpertsGroup on Competition (AEGC) Workshop onDeveloping Handbook of Competition Policyand Law. This workshop was held in Siem Reap,Cambodia on 26 - 27April 2010.

The objective of this workshop was to follow upthe 1st ASEAN Experts Group on Competition(AEGC) held in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, sometime ago. This workshop was part of the theHandbook preparation activities by AEGCattended by representatives from ASEANmember countries, namely Brunei Darussalam,Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia,Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand,and Vietnam.

The goal of the preparation of this Handbook isto describe the substances and procedures forenforcement of Business Competition Lawapplied in the ASEAN countries in easilyunderstood languages in order to supportregional and transnational business practices inthe ASEAN region. The Handbook was madenot as a comprehensive guidance regarding theapplication of Business Competition Law, but

rather as the means of documentation ofBusiness Competition Law applicable in theASEAN countries. The main focus of thehandbook is to inform the community ofbusiness actors and investors regarding theapplication of Business Competition Law in theASEAN countries.

With regard to a general overview of theframework, objectives, and scopes ofCompetition Law and Policy in the ASEANcountries, the First Section of the handbookcontains the important points of CompetitionLaw and Policy in the ASEAN countries that arerelevant to the community business actors. Theintroduction of the basic structure of theCompetition Law and Policy enforcement is animportant foundation in business. TheHandbook will describe important principles thatcan support the enforcement of the CompetitionLaw and Policy in which there are someresponsibilities of business actors.

The substance and procedure of lawenforcement within the ASEAN countries arediscussed in Section II of the Handbook withdiscussions in each country. The sections thatdiscuss law enforcement in each country will usethe same structure as the general description inPart I, based on question and answer (Q & A)from the business actors’ perspectives. Such astructure will help the reader to understand andcompare the important aspects of CompetitionLaw and Policy in the ASEAN countries. Thequestions are summarized in Section II of the

kompetisia vol 05/201010

International

Report on The 9thInternational

Competition NetwotkAnnual Conference

KPPU sent 2 (two) delegations to attend the 9thInternational Competition Network (ICN)Annual Conference, that held on 27 – 19 April2010 in Istanbul, Turki. The Conference wasattended by over 500 delegates participants,representing more than 80 antitrust agenciesfrom around the world, and includedcompetition experts from internationalorganizations and the legal, business,consumer, and academic communities. Itshowcased the recent work of ICN workinggroups on mergers, unilateral conduct, cartels,competition advocacy, and competition agencyeffectiveness and aimed to provide a forum forthe exchange of views regarding issues ofcommon interest among the participantsrepresenting competition agencies and non-governmental advisors (NGAs) from around theworld, and to strengthen the personal links thatlead to better international cooperation amongICN member agencies as well as with theconsumer, academic, business, economic, andlegal communities.

The ICN is an informal network of establishedand newer agencies competition agencies with

the common aim of addressing practicalantitrust enforcement and policy issues. Byenhancing convergence and cooperation, theICN promotes more efficient and effectiveantitrust enforcement worldwide for the benefitof consumers and businesses. The ICN’s maingoal is to improve and advocate for soundcompetition policy and its enforcement acrossthe global antitrust community. The ICN now

Handbook including:(1) Legal and Institutional Framework: What'sthe Competition Law? and Who is Authoritativein Supervising the Competition Law?(2) Target: Who is the Subject of the CompetitionLaw?(3) Substance: What are the practices prohibitedby the Competition Law?(4) Procedure: How are Prohibition Provisionsapplied?

(5) Are there any provisions for Exclusion orExemption for theApplication of the CompetitionLaw?

Furthermore, the conference also discussed thesocialization activities for the Handbook that willbe held round-up on 6 (six) of ASEAN countriesduring the period of 01 November 2010 to 12November 2010 with agenda as follows: (i) on 1November 2010, socialization will be held inSingapore, (ii) on 03 November 2010, in Jakarta,Indonesia, (iii) on 05 November 2010, in Hanoi,Vietnam, (iv) on 8 November 2010, in Bangkok,Thailand, (v) on 10 November 2010, in KualaLumpur, Malaysia, and (vi) on 12 November2010, in Manila, the Philippines.

http://w

ww

.en.ista

nbul2

010.o

rg

kompetisia vol 05/2010 11

International

Report on OECD - KoreaPolicy Centre RegionalAntitrust Workshop

KPPU sent 2 (two) delegations to attend the“Regional Antitrust Workshop on Analysis ofMerger” held on Seoul, South Korea on 28 – 30April 2010. This event was organized by theOECD-Korea Policy Centre, CompetitionProgramme. Topic of the workshop was analysisof mergers where there are vertical/conglomerate effects, and determining andenforcing the appropriate set of remedies inmerger cases. It attended by experts andparticipants from Australia, China, India,Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, OECD,Pakistan, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand,United States, Vietnam.

The programme covered all relevant issuesrelated to merger control enforcement, includingessential steps such as defining the relevantmarket, analysing the market structure,

assessing any harm to competition andimposing remedies. It was deals specifically withthe added difficulties of managing vertical,conglomerate and generally complex mergercases. As many of these mergers may lead tosome form of remedies, participants alsodiscussed the imposition or negotiation ofremedies in these types of cases. The topicswere addressed and discussed in lectures bycompetition experts from OECD countries and incase studies presented by the participants.

includes 112 member agencies from 99jurisdictions.

The Annual Conference highlighted the work ofthe Unilateral Conduct Working Group, whichwas established to promote analyticalconvergence and sound enforcement of lawsgoverning unilateral conduct by firms withsubstantial market power. The Working Group’ssession explored the competition analysis ofrefusal to deal and margin squeeze conduct,highlighting the results of a report based on asurvey of more than 40 jurisdictions. Otherimportant developments of the conference werebased on the work of the Merger Working Group.During the conference, ICN members adoptedtwo detailed Recommended Practices forMerger Analysis. The new RecommendedPractices for merger analysis address:(1) Market Definition in Merger Review.Agencies should address the competitive effectsof a merger within economically meaningfulmarkets. The hypothetical monopolist test is anappropriate test to determine the relevantmarket(s) in which to analyze the competitiveeffects of a merger.(2) Failing Firm/ExitingAssetsAnalysis.Agencies should carefully review claims by the

merging parties that a merger will not harmcompetition because the acquired firm and itsassets would have exited the market absent themerger in any event.

In addition, the ICN conference showcased thework of the Cartel Working Group, which aims toenhance the ability of antitrust agencies to crackcartels through the discussion of effectiveinvestigative techniques and the examination ofimportant legal and policy topics. The AdvocacyWorking Group presented guidance foragencies on conducting effective market studiesand a report summarizing a series ofteleseminars on agencies’ competitionadvocacy programs. The Agency EffectivenessWorking Group presented a report on strategicplanning and prioritization principles. Thenetwork also launched a project to create a“virtual university” on competition law andpractice, which will include training modulesaimed at new agency staff.

Competition is about price, supply, selection and service. It benefits consumers bykeeping prices low, avaibility, quality and choice of goods and services high.

KPPU-RICommission for the Supervision of Business CompetitionRepublic of IndonesiaKPPU Building, Jl. Ir. H. Juanda No. 36, Central Jakarta 10120

Phone. 021-350 7015, 350 7016, 350 7043 Fax. 021-350 7008

email: infokom@kppu.go.id

Surabaya

Medan

Balikpapan

Bumi Mandiri Building, Jl. Basuki Rahmat No. 129-137Surabaya 60271 - East JavaPhone. 031-545 4146, Fax. 031-545 4146email: kpd_surabaya@kppu.go.id

Ir. H. Juanda No. 9AMedan - North SumateraPhone. 061-455 8133, Fax. 061-414 803email: kpd_medan@kppu.go.id

BRI Building 8th Floor, Jl. Sudirman No. 37Balikpapan 76112 - East KalimantanPhone. 0542-730 373, Fax. 0542-415 939email: kpd_balikpapan@kppu.go.id

Jl.

Makassar

Batam

Menara Makassar 1st Floor, Jl. Nusantara No. 1Makassar - South SulawesiPhone. 0411-310 733, Fax. 0411-310 733email: kpd_makassar@kppu.go.id

Graha Pena Building 3rd A FloorJl. Raya Batam Center, Teluk Tering, NongsaBatam 29461 - Kepulauan RiauPhone. 0778-469 337, Fax. 0778-469 433email: kpd_batam@kppu.go.id

www.kppu.go.id

Regional Representative Offices