This document summarizes a case from the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) against five companies for bid rigging. The CCP found evidence the companies colluded on bids for a public sector tender. After hearings, the CCP determined the companies violated antitrust law. It rejected defenses that the relevant market wasn't defined and that bid rigging isn't a per se violation. The CCP fined each company PKR 2 million for collusive bidding, finding it a serious infringement.

1. NAME : AAMIR JUZER
CLASS : 4TH Semester
Subject :Corporate Law
Presentation Topic : 2012 CLD 150

2. 2012 C L D
150
Competition
Commission of
Pakistan
VS
AMIN BROTHERS
ENGINEERING
(PVT.) LIMITED
and 4 others

3. RELEVENT FACTS
 The CCP (the 'Commission'), as part of its bid rigging
detection program, routinely monitors information
related to public sector tenders.
 In one such review conducted on the tenders the
department found indicators of potential bid rigging
in the Tender.
 The Commission, authorized an enquiry into the
matter under section 37(1) of the Act.
 The Inquiry Officers completed the enquiry and
produced an inquiry report dated 21st July.

4. RELEVENT FACTS
 The Inquiry concluded that the respondents had, prima
facie, collusive bid for the Tender in violation of section 4
of the Act and recommended that proceedings under
section 30 of the Act may be initiated.
 The Commission issued show cause notices dated 2nd
August 2010 to the respondents for their alleged conduct.

5. RELEVENT FACTS
 All the parties were heard at length over four
hearings conducted on 3rd November 2010,25th
January 2011, 24th February 2011 and 9th
March, 2011.

6. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
 (1) That the Commission is applying the Act
retrospectively? and
 (2) That the show cause notices were issued
legally?

7. ANSWER REGARDING
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
 Answer of 1st objection lies in section 62 C.A 2010
intended that its provisions have retrospective effect from
2nd October,2007.
 Answer 2nd objection 28 (2) C A 2010empowers the
Commission to delegate its functions and powers to any
Member of Officer In
 the present case, the Registrar of the Commission was
delegated the power to issue the show cause notices.

8. RELEVENT LAWS/PROVISIONS
 4 (prohibited Agreements)
 28(2) (delegation of powers)
 30 (initiate proceeding )
 37 (enquiry)
 38 (penalty)
 62 (validation and actions ,etc.)

9. ISSUES
 The counsel for the respondents has raised some legal
arguments on the application and interpretation of the Act:
 (a) Whether it is mandatory to define the relevant market
under section 4 of the Act for cases
 involving allegation of bid rigging?
 (b) Whether the per se rule for condemning hard core
cartels is envisioned by the Act.
 (c)Whether in cases of alleged bid rigging the effect on the
relevant market needs to be determined?

10. ANSWER REGARDING ISSUES
 Answer of issue No (a) According to section 4 in
cases of collusion, market power is irrelevant
What is relevant is the agreement to collude.
Therefore, the identification of a relevant market
in cases of collusion is merely for the purposes of
reference and is not a requirement for
establishing an anti competitive action.

11. ANSWER REGARDING ISSUES
 Answer of issue No (b) In situations where the
purpose of the agreement is to restrain
competition, it is classified as a per se violation
or a restriction by object and no further analysis
into its effect is required.

12. ANSWER REGARDING ISSUES
 The argument of the counsel cannot be accepted.
As mentioned above, bid rigging schemes are
designed to fix prices and divide markets. Both
these actions constitute restriction by object as
per the jurisdiction evolved in Pakistan.

13. DECISION
 The respondents violated section 4 of the Act by
engaging in collusive bidding which is a serious
infringement of competition law

14. PENALTY
 To impose a penalty of PKR 2 million on each of
the respondents.
 The penalty should be deposited within thirty
days of this order.

15. PERSONAL ANALYSIS
 Similar to the commission.

16. THANK YOU