CCI: Intel did not violate fair trade norms
CCI ruled that Intel did not abuse its dominant position in the microprocessors market, ending the three-year-old case.
Fair trade watchdog Competition Commission of India (CCI) has ended the three year case against the global chipmaker Intel filed by ESYS Information Technology. CCI ruled that Intel did not abuse its dominant position in the market.
CCI ruled that Intel had “not restricted and limited the market by foreclosing the distribution network to its competitors.”
“Intel did not deny access to its competitors in the microprocessor market nor had it “imposed supplementary conditions or leveraged its dominant position in the market of high-demand products in the market for low-demand products,” among others, according to the ruling. “Since no case is made out against Intel, either under the provisions…of the (Competition) Act, the matter relating to this information is disposed of accordingly and the proceedings are closed forthwith,” the CCI noted.
The commission noted that even though Intel is a dominant enterprise in the market for mobiles and desktop PCs, the company’s so-called conduct is not abusive in terms of any of the provisions of the Competition Act. “…the alleged pricing policy of Intel does not amount to secondary line price discrimination and has not resulted in foreclosure of any of its downstream customers,” the order said.
The ruling added, “The allegation regarding charging of unfair and discriminatory prices by Intel in violation of competition norms does not stand established.”
ESYS Information Technologies, an independent distributor for designated products of Intel in India, had filed the complaint against Hong Kong-based Intel Semiconductor, US-based Intel Corp. and Intel Technology India. The company has filed a complaint stating that Intel imposed anti-competitive agreements and indulged in unfair pricing practices, thereby denying market access.
The complaint was filed in August 2011 against Intel and the two related entities with the CCI. The probe was ordered in December that year and CCI’s investigation arm ‘Director General’ had submitted its report in June 2013.
Source: TOI