The Competition Commission of India (CCI) rejected allegations on Tuesday that Jindal Stainless Limited entered into anti-competitive exclusive agreements with Indonesian firms and nickel producers.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) rejected allegations on Tuesday that Jindal Stainless Limited entered into anti-competitive exclusive agreements with Indonesian firms and nickel producers.
The issue was raised before the CCI by an anonymous Indian stainless steel manufacturer involved in the production and trade of stainless steel products, whose identity the Commission kept confidential. The complainant alleged that Jindal Stainless secured exclusive arrangements with Indonesian suppliers for the supply of steel sheets and hot-rolled nickel-rich coils, thereby denying Indian competitors access to critical raw materials.
The informant emphasized that since India lacks its own nickel reserves, the domestic stainless steel industry is heavily reliant on imports, especially after Indonesia banned the export of unprocessed nickel ore in 2020.
The complaint also contained a claim that Jindal Stainless's dealer program, named 'Jindal Saathi' and operating through Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs), compelled distributors to primarily purchase products from this company.
The antitrust watchdog noted in its order that no evidence was presented showing that any competing manufacturer faced production restrictions, reduced output, market exit, or any other competitive disadvantage related to limited access to such raw materials. Regarding upstream markets, the Commission ruled that Jindal Stainless does not appear to hold a dominant position, pointing to the presence of numerous local and international suppliers, including several foreign manufacturers certified by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS).
The Commission acknowledged that Jindal Stainless appears to hold a dominant position in the cold-rolled stainless steel (CRSS) end-product market due to its scale, economic strength, and vertical integration, but found no evidence of abuse of this position.
The CCI order stated: 'In the preliminary view of the Commission, the assertion that the disputed agreements led to denial of market access for competing manufacturers in the Indian CRSS end-product market is unsubstantiated, and preliminarily, there is no violation of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act.'
Dismissing the claims against the company's dealer program, the CCI noted that participation in the 'Jindal Saathi' program and associated MoUs is voluntary and is not a prerequisite for purchasing materials from the company. The Commission stated that the inspection, traceability, and record-keeping requirements are apparently aimed at achieving the stated goal of preventing counterfeiting and ensuring product traceability, rather than restricting the commercial freedom of participants.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) closed a complaint filed against Delhi International Airport Ltd (DIAL) after finding no evidence of abuse of dominant position in awarding security service contracts at Indira Gandhi International Airport.
The CCI terminated the proceedings at the preliminary stage, rejecting claims that DIAL awarded security contracts to RAXA Security Services, a subsidiary of GMR Group, without adhering to a transparent competitive bidding process.
The regulator stated in its order that 'the Commission deems it appropriate not to interfere with commercial decisions made by organizations in the course of ordinary business, unless it raises anti-competitive concerns.'
The complaint was filed by Swam Karthik Sharma, Director of Galaxy Security and Allied Services Pvt Ltd. He alleged that DIAL was obstructing market access for other security service providers, creating a monopolized environment, and that this agreement violated the Operation, Management and Development Agreement (OMDA) governing the airport concession.
After receiving a detailed response from DIAL, the CCI concluded that the tender was awarded in accordance with the provisions of the OMDA and on arm's length basis. The CCI noted that in several cases, it had previously stated that the buyer must have freedom of choice when procuring goods and services in accordance with local law.
In reviewing the complaint, the CCI observed that RAXA received the tender for providing security services at Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGIA) after complying with the competitive bidding process.
In response to accusations of selectively awarding the tender to an organization like RAXA, which is 100% owned by GMR, DIAL informed the CCI that several parties participated in the bidding process, and none were related parties except RAXA. The company stated that the OMDA does not restrict the award of contracts to related or affiliated parties provided the OMDA provisions are met.
DIAL also emphasized that the claim of suppressing competition and excluding competitors is 'entirely false,' as for all tenders conducted by DIAL in 2007, 2014, 2020, 2022, and 2025, a competitive bidding process was followed in full compliance with the OMDA and applicable laws, and contracts were awarded on an arm's length basis.
The regulator concluded that 'based on the materials submitted by DIAL, the Commission finds that the allegations regarding the violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act are unsubstantiated.' Furthermore, the Commission dismissed the collusion allegations under Section 3, noting that the applicant did not provide any material indicating any collusive behavior.
