| Case ID |
f8cc23af-6791-44fb-a306-c7a2542dfb95 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Show Cause Notices Nos. 26 to 69 of 2014 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 10, 2015 |
| Hearing Date |
Mar 12, 2015 |
| Decision |
The Competition Commission of Pakistan found the Pakistan Automobile Manufacturers Authorized Dealers Association (PAMADA) and its member undertakings in violation of section 4 of the Competition Act, 2010, due to collusive decision-making regarding pricing and market allocation. Specific instances included fixing rates for automotive body repairs and paint job services and restricting the movement of human resources among member undertakings. The Commission imposed penalties totaling PKR 140 million on PAMADA for these violations while no violations were established against individual member undertakings. The case highlighted the detrimental effects of collusion on market competition and emphasized the need for strict adherence to competition laws. |
| Summary |
The case under the Competition Act (XIX of 2010) primarily involved the Pakistan Automobile Manufacturers Authorized Dealers Association (PAMADA) and its collusive practices affecting competition in the automobile sector. The Competition Commission of Pakistan identified multiple violations, including the fixing of prices for body repairs and paint jobs, market allocation among dealers, and restrictions on employee movement. The Commission determined that these practices had the object and effect of preventing, restricting, or reducing competition in relevant markets. Consequently, significant penalties were imposed on PAMADA, underlining the importance of compliance with competition laws to foster fair market practices. The decision serves as a crucial reminder for trade associations to operate within legal frameworks that promote competitive behaviors, protect consumer interests, and avoid anti-competitive practices that can distort market dynamics. |
| Court |
Competition Commission of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Pakistan Automobile Manufacturers Authorized Dealers Association,
Honda South,
Honda Drive Inn,
Toyota Walton Motors,
Polad Motors,
Mandviwala Motors,
Carachi Motors,
Danish Motors,
I.G. Motors,
Khair Agency,
Khalil Motors,
Macca Motors,
Nadeem International,
Naseer Autos,
Plaza Motors,
Riaz Motors,
SNA Motors,
Suzuki Defense,
Suzuki Margalla Motors,
Suzuki Mehran Motors,
Suzuki Motorways,
Suzuki South,
Suzuki Western Motors,
Zeeshan Autos,
Suzuki Tharparker Motors
|
| Judges |
MS. VADIYYA KHALIL,
MUEEN BATLAY,
DR. SHAHZAD ANSAR,
IKRAM UL HAQUE QURESHI
|
| Lawyers |
Hassan Ali Raza,
Umer Shahid,
Mustafa Munir,
Ms. Maleeka Ali Bokhari,
Shahrukh Iftikhar,
Mian Mansoor,
Hassan Mandviwala,
Naveed Ul Haq,
Mansoor Ali Ghanghro
|
| Petitioners |
Not available
|
| Respondents |
Mansoor Ali Ghanghro,
Aamir Khalil,
Ms. Anam,
Hassan Ali Raza,
Umer Shahid,
Mustafa Munir,
Ms. Maleeka Ali Bokhari,
Shahrukh Iftikhar,
Mian Mansoor,
Hassan Mandviwala,
Naveed Ul Haq
|
| Citations |
2016 SLD 629 = 2016 CLD 289
|
| Other Citations |
Dole Food Company Inc. v. European Commission Case C 286/13 P,
Hofner and Elser v. Macrotron GmBH and Ambulanzglockner v. LandkreisSudwestpfalz European Court of Justice (1991) Case C-41/90, [1991] ECR I-1979,
NV Nederlandsche Banden Industrie Michelin v. Commission of the European Communities European Court of Justice (2001) Case C-475/99, [2001] ECR I-8089
|
| Laws Involved |
Competition Act (XIX of 2010)
|
| Sections |
4,
2(1)(q),
31,
38
|