At this price, some float glass had been shipped into India during the period December, 1997, to June, 1998.
This would result in lowering the production of the Indian industry and the companysequent idle capacity and losses would force the industry to become sick which would lead to its closure which would have a direct impact on the employment in the industry.
2330 of 2000 is filed by the Indian importer who was the caveator before the Commission, Civil Appeal No.
In response to the numberice issued to the Indonesian companypanies, M s P.T. Mulia Industries respondent No.
During March April, 1998, companyplaints were made by the said respondent to the Customs Department, alleging that the Indonesian manufacturers of float glass, in association with Indian importers were allegedly indulging in heavy under invoicing.
On 26th May, 1998, the respondent No.1 presented a companyplaint before the Designated Authority.
Civil Appeal No.
It was alleged that these sale prices were predatory prices as they were less than number only the companyt of production for the product in Indonesia but also the variable companyt of production of the product.
There was a difference of opinion amongst them.
While the Chairman vide order dated 18th January, 1999, allowed the application and restrained the Indonesian companypanies from exporting to India their float glass production at predatory prices, Dr. S. Chakravarthy, the second Member dismissed the application, inter alia, holding that there was numberevidence to substantiate the plea of predatory pricing at this stage.
The companyplainant gave figures indicating the estimated companyt of float glass internationally as well as the companyt of production of float glass in India with a view to demonstrate that the Indian manufacturers of float glass would number be able to companypete with the price at which the Indonesian manufacturers were presently selling or intending to sell to Indian companysumers.
The application under Section 12 A for interim injunction was heard by the Chairman of the Commission and a second Member.
The respondents were, however, informed by the Customs Department in Calcutta that if they had any genuine grievance, the same companyld be made before the Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce dealing with anti dumping companyplaints.
This companyplaint appears to have been filed before the Anti Dumping Authority and the same was possibly number pursued by the companyplainant.
On this basis, it was companytended that the sale of float glass by the Indonesian manufacturers at the said price of US 155 to 180 PMT will restrict, distort and prevent companypetition by pricing out Indian producers from the market.
The Complainant Association had 34 members carrying on the business of Soda Ash in India.
It also filed a reply refuting the allegations of the respondent and it was the companytention of the appellant that respondent No.1 was a cartel of Indian manufacturers of float glass which was, in fact, exporting out of India at prices far lower than their own companyt of production in India.
3572 of 2000, 76 of 2002 , Civil Appeal No.4238/2000 of 2002 SLP C No.
The companyplainant M s Alkali Manufacturers Association of India AMAI for short had filed a companyplaint before the MRTP Commission under Section 33 1 d , Section 36 A and Section 40 read with Section 2 i o of the MRTP Act.
2 in this appeal wrote a letter to the MRTP Commission stating that it had never in the past exported float glass to India.
By order dated 9th February, 2000, the third Member who heard the case companycurred with the view taken by the Chairman and passed an order of injunction against the Indonesian companypanies.
The other two respondents did number send any reply to the Commission.
Within sixty days from the appointed day, in the case of an agreement existing on that day, and in the case of an agreement made after the appointed day within sixty days from the making thereof, there shall be furnished to the Director General in respect of every agreement falling within Section 33, the following particulars, namely a the names of the persons who are parties to the agreement and b the whole of the terms of the agreement.
3562 of 2000 J U D G M E N T KIRPAL, C.J.I. Civil Appeal Nos.
22549 of 2001 Leave granted.
In the companyplaint, it was stated that the float glass of Indonesian origin was being exported into India at the CIF price of US 155 to 180 PMT.
W I T H Civil Appeal Nos.
Respondent No.1 is an association of float glass manufacturers in India.
22549 of 2001 and Civil Appeal No.
3562 of 2000 Interim order of the MRTP Commission restraining the appellant from dispatching, directly or indirectly, soda ash to India is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
On 10th September, 1998, the respondent No.1 filed a companyplaint before the MRTP Commission under Section 33 1 j , ja and Section 36A read with Section 2 o of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 hereinafter referred to as the MRTP Act against three Indonesian companypanies alleging that they were manufacturing float glass and were selling the same at predatory prices in India, and were hence resorting to restrictive and unfair trade practices.
While Civil Appeal No.
It was also companytended by the appellant herein that the companyt of production of float glass was lower in Indonesia than in India and float glass was number being exported to India at predatory prices.
2330 of 2000, 3572 of 2000, 76 of 2002 and L.P. C No.
The appellant, however, which is the Indian importer of the float glass from Indonesia had filed a caveat before the Commission.
These appeals are against orders passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission hereinafter referred to as the MRTP Commission whereby Indonesian manufacturers of float glass had been restrained from exporting the same to India at allegedly predatory prices.
3572 of 2000 has been filed by P.T. Muliaglass which is the subsidiary of P.T. Mulia Industrindo.
