M/s. Haridas Exports versus All India Float Glass Mfrs. Association & others

This Case Brief is written by K. Lasya Charitha pursuing BA LLB in Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Visakhapatnam.

Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 2330 of 2000

Equivalent Citation

AIR 2002 SC 2728, 2002 (82) ECC 683, JT 2002( 5) SC 253

Bench

Hon’ble Former Chief Justice of India B.N. Kirpal, Hon’ble Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Hon’ble Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.

Decided on

22^nd July 2002.

Relevant Act/ Section

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969- Sections 1(2), 2(e), 2(o), 2(u), 12, 14. 33, 35, 37

Customs Tariffs Act, 1975- Section 9

Brief Facts and Procedural History

On 10/09/1998, the defendant filed a lawsuit with the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission under Section 33 (1) (j), (ja) and Section 36A and Section 2 (o) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (MRTP) and sued three Indonesian companies that claimed that they produced float glass and sold it at predatory prices in India, reintroducing restrictive and unfair business practices. The Appellant, which is the Indian Exporter of float glass from Indonesia, contradicted that the accused was a cartel of an Indian float glass manufacturer, who actually exported from India at a price lower than the production cost in India. The MRTP Commission approved the application and prevented Indonesian companies from exporting float glass products to India at predatory prices. Therefore, the aggrieved appellant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of India.

Issues before the Court

Whether the MRTP Act has extra-territorial operations?
Whether the principle of “effects doctrine” has its application in India?
Whether the Anti-Dumping provision ousts the jurisdiction of the MRTP commission?
Whether an agreement to import from Indonesia to India at a predatory price need to be registered under Section 33 (1) (j) of the Act?

Ratio of the Case

With regards to the first issue, sections 1(2), 2(e), and section 14 together make it clear that the Act has no extraterritorial operation. In addition, Explanation I to Section 35 confirms this principle. With regards to the second issue, if any restrictive trade practice as a consequence of outside agreement is carried out in India then the Commission shall have jurisdiction under section 37(1) of the Act if it concludes that the same is prejudicial to the public interest. Even if the transaction takes place outside of India, if the consequences of the transaction lead to restrictive trade practices in Indian, the “effects doctrine” will allow the MRTP Commission with jurisdiction to approve the appropriate order. With regards to the third issue, the jurisdiction of the MRTP commission is not ousted by the Anti-Dumping provisions in the Customs Act. The two acts deal with totally different fields and have different purposes. Regarding the fourth question, judging from the facts of this case, there is no fact of predatory pricing. In this case at hand, Indian monopolies’ undertakings seem to have faced competition. The reduction in the prices of Indian importers is to benefit the Indian buyers. Therefore, importing materials at lower prices than prevailing in India cannot be considered harmful and being prejudicial to the public interest.

Decision of the Court

Thus, in this case, the Honourable Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal by setting aside the order i.e., restrained the Indonesian companies from exporting to India is given by the MRTP Commission that the MRTP has no extraterritorial jurisdiction and that the jurisdiction of MRTP commission is not ousted by the Anti-Dumping provisions in the Customs Act and both are for different purposes and also that reduction of the price is beneficial and public interest.

Latest Posts

Archives