Displaying items by tag: Cartel

India: On 11 June 2013 the Supreme Court admitted the appeals of several cement manufacturers against a Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT) order, which directed the cement companies to pay a penalty for allegedly forming a cartel. The case is scheduled to come up towards the end of the week ending 14 June 2013 after the reply of the Builders Association of India (BAI).

The cement companies argued that the penalty, fixed ad hoc at the rate of 10% of their worth, was huge and unjustified. If the firms do not pay the penalties, their appeal case (before CAT) will be automatically dismissed, according to the CAT order.

UltraTech Cement Ltd, argued that CCI did not find any prima facie case against the 11 companies picked by the association out of 42 major cement manufacturers but still the CAT imposed a penalty in an interim order. The deadline for payment of the penalties is 16 June 2013.

Among the cement manufacturers that have appealed to the Supreme Court against the CAT order are Jaiprakash Associates, Century Textiles & Industries and Madras Cements.

Turkey: Turkey's Competition Authority said on 11 June 2013 that it had launched a probe into the local cement producers Çimsa Çimento and Oyak Adana Çimento on allegations of price setting.

The authority said that data gathered during a preliminary inquiry was sufficient to open an investigation into whether or not the two companies had violated competition regulations by setting prices for white cement.

India: The Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPACT) has ordered cement producers to pay 10% of a US$1.15bn fine imposed on them by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for a price-fixing cartel. The tribunal asked 11 Indian cement producers to pay the fine within 30 days otherwise their appeal against the fine will be dismissed.

COMPAT had reserved its order over a batch of petitions filed by various cement producers and the Cement Manufacturer's Association (CMA) on 18 March 2013 after hearing them on an interim plea. In the petitions, the cement producers had challenged US$1.15bn penalty imposed on them by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and a US$133,000 fine imposed on the CMA. The cement companies charged with cartel behaviour include Lafarge India, India Cement, JP Associates, Binani Cement, Ambuja Cement, Madras Cement and J K Cement.

The CCI had found cement producers were in violation of the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 which deals with anti-competitive agreements, including cartels. The order was passed following probe by CCI Director General (Investigation) on a complaint filed by Builders Association.

South Korea: Leading cement producers in South Korea, including Tongyang Cement, Hanil Cement and Sungshin, have notified ready-mixed concrete companies and construction contractors that they will freeze cement prices for 2013. The move follows an investigation on suspected price collusion by the Fair Trade Commission.

The official notices from the cement producers attributed the decision to the financial difficulties experienced by most cement-consuming industries. Accordingly, the cement makers will soon cancel the invoices sent out to the consumer firms.

Since February 2013, cement producers have said they would raise cement prices by 9 – 10% in 2013 due to a rise in the prices of bituminous coal and other raw materials. The cumulative losses of Korea's six major cement producers since 2007 have been in excess of US$867m.

South Korea: The South Korean Fair Trade Commission has started an investigation into major cement companies including Ssangyong Cement Industrial and Hanil Cement for suspected price fixing. The companies had notified ready-mixed concrete operators that they would raise their cement prices by 9-10% in 2012.

On 9 April 2013 the commission sent investigators on a two day probe to seven cement producers: Ssangyong Cement Industrial, Hanil Cement, Tongyang Cement, Sungshin Cement, Lafarge Halla, Asia Cement and Hyundai Cement.

An industry source said, "Lately cement producers and ready-mixed concrete operators are at loggerheads over cement prices. It appears that the Fair Trade Commission is looking closely into the matter. In 2003, the commission had imposed penalties of US$22.5m for restricting the supply of cement to ready-mixed concrete makers in order to prevent them to use slag powder in place of cement."

Pakistan: Cement producers have denied the existence of a cartel to Pakistan's Ministry of Industries. In a meeting with the ministry they reported that they are operating at the lowest rate of return and have passed on the bare minimum impact of inflation to consumers in the past few years.

At the meeting cement producers argued that no cartel existed in the industry because there is no uniformity in prices of cement, utilisation and market. The

price of cement per bag in Pakistan has only increased by up to 38% since 2005 despite input costs rising more than this level. Total equity of the industry is US$1.3bn and it has a 10% rate of return. In contrast, independent power producers (IPPs) are operating at 18% rate of return.

In an interview with the Express Tribune Waleed Sehgal, Director of Maple Leaf Cement Factory, cited examples of price rises in other industries that were more than cement. According to Sehgal the price of sugar had seen a peak rise of 400% since 2005, Urea a rise of 375% and di-ammonium phosphate (DAP) of 400%.

Sehgal stressed that prices of electricity, gas, coal and paper bag, labour cost and freight rate had increased manifold. "We have given the rationale behind the increase in cement prices to the Ministry of Industries," he said. He further said the industry was under debt of US$1.02bn, which it has to pay despite a low return.

Pakistan's Lucky Cement received the 'all clear' for its cement imports from the South African regulators last week. The situation exposes the increasingly competitive market in the country after the South African Competition Commission cartel investigations in 2011.

Sales of Lucky Cement were originally shut down in 2011 due to accusations made by its competitors, including Pretoria Portland Cement (PPP) and Natal Portland Cement (NPC). They complained that Lucky was not complying with South African standards. South Africa's National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications (NRCS) then ran its independent investigation and released its results last week.

The regulator's full 28-day test found no evidence that Lucky Cement imports were non-compliant with regards to their quality. A minor infringement concerning underweight bags was found and fixed. However, about a week beforehand, Lafarge South Africa's CEO said that his company was considering approaching another trade body with concerns about 'low-quality cheap cement' imported from Pakistan.

More serious criticism came from the Cement and Concrete Institute when the NRCS admitted that it didn't know how much cement had been imported into South Africa so far in 2012. The NRCS is supposed to inspect and approve the testing bodies each producer and importer uses for every 500t of cement.

Lucky Cement has been a regular importer of cement to South Africa since 2009. It exports around 1.65Mt/yr to over 22 countries in South East Asia, the Middle East and Africa. CCI figures reckon that 140,000t of cement was imported to South Africa in the first quarter of 2012, mostly by Lucky Cement. According to the Global Cement Directory 2012 South Africa's capacity is around 11Mt/yr.

Four domestic producers – Lafarge, PPC, AfriSam and NPC – were accused of cartel activity by the South African Competition Commission, in a case that has been running since 2008. PPC confirmed the existence of the cartel, whilst Lafarge and AfriSam were fined US$19.6m and US$16m respectively.

By letting Lucky Cement resume the sale of its cement in South Africa, the NRCS has arguably done more than the Competition Commission to prevent cartel activity. With reports surfacing that other producers in Pakistan and India are considering exports to South Africa, domestic producers are going to have to become more inventive and more competitive.

India: Encouraged by the general response to its US1.1bn penalty imposed on 11 Indian cement companies for a price-fixing cartel, India's competition watchdog, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), has said that it will show leniency to those companies and individuals that provide information on cartels and anti-competitive agreements.

"It is the right time to reach out to people and encourage them to come out with information on more cartels," said CCI Chairman Ashok Chawla. Chawla said that the Competition Act provides for 'leniency programmes' for those who help the CCI tackle the 'pernicious practise of cartelisation,' and pointed out that the facility had not yet been used.

India: The announcement last week that 11 Indian cement producers face a combined US$1.1bn penalty for a price-fixing cartel will cast a long shadow over the country's increasingly vulnerable-looking cement industry.

For years the Indian cement industry has been beset by suspicions of over-capacity despite a constant stream of new capacity. Now the Competition Commission of India (CCI) thinks that it has got to the heart of the paradox by accusing manufacturers of limiting production amid high demand and colluding to artificially raise prices.

The amount that the CCI has fined the companies, 50% of their net profits for the two fiscal years to 31 March 2011, is quite astonishing. If enforced in its entirety the fine effectively negates a large portion of the sector's profits for an entire fiscal year. This is clearly not a slap-on-the-wrist from the CCI.

In the 1990s and early 2000s a similar cartel case involving European (and specifically German) cement producers led to fines in the order of hundreds of thousands of US Dollars. The industry has since cleaned up its act considerably as a result. Indian producers would be foolish not to follow suit. What are the likely effects in the Indian case?

Removing the cartel that the CCI purports to have found would reduce prices, which are inflated by an oft-quoted 25% median in a cartel. This is clearly good news for consumers and potentially the development of the Indian economy in general. The obvious losers in this situation would be the producers, which would see a reduction in profitability. Some of the smaller producers would find such a situation very challenging, with the risk of going bust or being absorbed into larger companies.

Another possibility is that the accusations will spread along the value chain. Shortly after the announcement of the fine, the Builders' Association of India (BAI), announced that it wants the fine increased to accommodate compensation claims from contractors and consumers that it feels are out-of-pocket as a result of the cartel. Many will feel aggrieved now that they 'know' the cement companies were profiteering - sorting out claims from affected parties could be a long and costly exercise.

The effects of the fine could also extend to outside of India. Indian cement producers, very good customers of the Chinese and European cement plant manufacturers in recent years, will have to deal with lower revenues. This will clearly dampen their enthusiasm to contract further capacity and may cause knock-on-effects for Sinoma, KHD, Polysuis and other major suppliers. The cement industries of neighbouring countries, like Pakistan, may also be affected.

Whatever happens in the Indian cement industry as a result of the CCI's fine, the authority, only formed in 2009, has shown that it is serious about taking on corruption in India. In the long run that can only help develop the potential of the country.

"The first thing for any new competition regulator is to go out and find the cement cartel. My experience of this subject is, it is always there, somewhere," wrote Richard Whish, a Professor of Law at King's College London in 2001. "The only countries in which I had been unable to find the cement cartel is where there is a national state-owned monopoly for cement."

India: Having welcomed the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) decision to impose a record US$1.1bn penalty on 11 cement companies, the Builders' Association of India (BAI) has asked the competition watchdog to review the size of penalty.

The BAI has urged the CCI to, "review the quantum of the penalty and also to conduct an inquiry into the losses incurred by contractors due to such profiteering by cement manufacturers and to consider reimbursing the losses to the contractors."

D L Desai, a trustee of the BAI, said that it had urged the CCI to impose a fixed percentage of the penalty as a deposit with the CCI in case the cement manufacturers approach the Appellate Authority in an attempt to challenge the fine.

"We are happy that the CCI has taken action to penalise the cement companies. It (will) give a boost to the construction industry, leading to the revival of our economy, which is currently going through a difficult phase," said BAI Secretary Anand Gupta.

"The construction industry is a major driver of the Indian economy and any unfair practices as indulged in by the cement companies have adverse impact not only on this industry but the overall economy," he added.