| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1565 2018 SLD 1565 2018 CLD 759 |
Competition Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad
Appeal No. 9 of 2016, decided on 28-09-2016. Dates of hearing: 15th June and 21-09-2016.
JUSTICE (R) MIAN FASIH UL MULK, CHAIRPERSON,, JUSTICE (R) MIFTAH-UD-DIN, MEMBER TECHNICAL, AHMED OWAIS PIRZADA, MEMBER TECHNICAL
Ch. Khurshid Ahmed for Appellant. Azid Nafees for
Respondent.
Appeal No. 9 of 2016, decided on 28-09-2016. Dates of hearing: 15th June and 21-09-2016.
JUSTICE (R) MIAN FASIH UL MULK, CHAIRPERSON,, JUSTICE (R) MIFTAH-UD-DIN, MEMBER TECHNICAL, AHMED OWAIS PIRZADA, MEMBER TECHNICAL
Ch. Khurshid Ahmed for Appellant. Azid Nafees for
Respondent.
PAKISTAN POULTRY ASSOCIATION
VS
COM COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN court
Law:
Section:
Competition Act (XIX of 2010)--- ----Ss. 4(1) & 4(2)(a)---Appeal before Competition Appellate Tribunal---Preventing, restricting or reducing competition---Poultry Association---Fixing selling prices of live broiler chicken, broiler chicken meat and chicken eggs---Competition Commission vide impugned order held that the Poultry Association's/appellant's action were in violation of S. 4(1) read with S. 4(2)(a) of the Competition Act, 2010 with respect to two distinct markets, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 Million for violation in the market for broiler chicken and Rs. 50 Million for the violation in the market for chicken eggs, and the appellant was also ordered to immediately cease and desist from advertising the rates of poultry products as an association---Validity---Concerned Market Committee advertised rates of poultry for a certain city only and for a specific day and date, whereas the advertisements given by the appellant Association clearly indicated that the rates referred in the advertisement were applicable throughout Pakistan and the meat on such rates was available across the country---Advertisements given by the appellant , therefore, were not in line with the concerned Market Committee's decision---By advertising prices of the poultry products in the national press the appellant had clearly prevented, restricted and reduced competition within the relevant market, which was a clear violation of S. 4 of the Competition Act, 2010---Although the appellant had taken the position that no such decision or agreement referred in S. 4 of the Act could be produced or referred by the Competition Commission in its impugned decision, however, the evidence of advertisement given by the appellant, completely fulfilled the conditions referred in S. 4 of the Act with regard to violations adversely affecting the competitive environment in the market---Appellant had, therefore, violated S. 4(1) read with S. 4(2)(a) of the Competition Act, 2010---Findings recorded by Competition Commission were based on proper appraisal of relevant provisions of law as well as other material brought on record, therefore, the same had to be maintained---Appeal was dismissed…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492